^y  or  PRi/ic?^ 


'Logical  SE>^;5^ 


BS  2775  .L921  1884 
Lowrie,  Samuel  T.  1835-1924 
An  explanation  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 


AN   EXPLANATION 


OF  THE 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 


BY   THE 

REV.  SAMUEL  T.  LOWRIE,  B.  D., 

PASTOR  OF  TH.K  KWING   PBESBYTEBIAN  CHUKCH,  NEW  JERSEY. 


NEW  YORK: 

ROBERT  CARTER  &  BROTHERS, 

530  Broadway. 


COPYRIGHT  BY 

SAMUEL  T.  LOWRIE, 

1884. 


QBANT  A  FAIRKS, 
FUILADiiiiJ'illA. 


ERRATA. 

Page    47,  13th  line  from  bottom,  for  Iv  and  Ivi,  read  Ixv  and 

Ixvi. 
Page    77,  5th    line  from  top,  for  infiniiy,  read  infirmity. 
Page  105,  3rd    line  from^  bottom,  for  presented,  rQ3i6. preserved. 
Page  181,  5th    line  from  top,  for  hi^n,  xtdid  firm. 
Page  213,  4th    line  from  bottom,  for  are  fleeing,  tedidi  fled. 
Page  216,  8th    and  15th  lines  from  top,  for  flee,  read  fled. 
Page  216,  9th    line  from  top,  iox present,  read  aorist. 
Page  240,  1 8th  line  from  top,  before  also,  supply  of  necessity. 
Page  264,  3rd    and  8th  lines  from  top,  ior priest,  read  priests. 
Page  272,  3rd    line  from  top,  for  /or,  read  wit/i. 
Page  454,  6th    line  from  top,  heiore  fait/i,  supply  t/iis. 
Page  506,  9th    and  i8th  lines  from  top,  for  Hai^.,  read  d!lag. 
Page  512,  8th    line  from  bottom,  for  /lave,  read  /lad. 
Page  528,  I  St     line  from  top,  read  to  tvhom  through  Jesus. 
Page  532,  3d      line  from    bottom,  supply   luith   whom,  if  he 

come  so  soon,  I  will  see  you. 
Page  536,  Perfection,  for  10.  11,  read  5<5,  f/. 


PREFACE. 


The  explanation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  herewith  offered 
to  the  public,  is  the  fruit  of  eight  years  devoted  to  its  study. 
One  result  of  the  study  has  been  the  conviction  that  the  epistle 
claims  the  attention  of  Christian  scholars,  as  a  too  much  neglected 
portion  of  Holy  Scripture.  Not  till  the  contents  of  the  present 
volume  were  nearly  written  out  in  full  was  the  thouglit  of  pub- 
lishing seriously  entertained.  But  when  one's  investigation  of  a 
subject  of  universal  importance  has  led  him  to  see  much  as  it  has 
not  commonly  been  seen  by  others,  the  impulse  to  publish  is 
natural.  This  may  be  the  impulse  of  a  prophet,  who  is  con- 
strained to  teach  as  knowing  what  others  are  ignorant  of,  yet 
need  to  learn.  Or  it  may  be  the  impulse  of  a  scholar,  who  feels 
the  need  of  enlisting  those  better  qualified  than  himself  in  the 
study  of  the  subject  that  has  yielded  so  much  to  him,  so  that  it 
may  be  searched  till  all  its  riches  are  brought  to  light.  The 
latter  has  been  the  impelling  motive  to  the  present  publication. 

These  considerations,  however,  though  fortified  by  the  encour- 
agement of  friends,  whose  judgment  miglit  justly  give  confidence, 
and  whose  encouragement  is  hereby  gratefully  acknowledged,  could 
hardly  have  moved  the  writer  to  this  publication,  had  he  merely 
the  results  of  his  own  investigations  to  offer.  The  inspiration  to 
these  studies  was  received  from  Dr.  von  Hofmann,  late  professor 
of  theology  in  Erlangen.  The  writer,  liaving  begun  an  acquaint- 
ance Avith  him  in  his  lecture-room,  during  a  brief  sojourn  at  that 
university  in  1857,  has  continued  to  cultivate  it  since  in  his  pub- 


IV  PREFACE. 

lished  works,  and  thus  has  learned  to  know  the  extraordinary 
merit  of  his  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Delitzsch,  who,  before  his  removal  to  Leipzig,  was  long  asso- 
ciated with  von  Hofmann  in  the  university  of  Erlangen,  bears  the 
following  testimony :  "His  contributions  to  the  interpretation  of  our 
Epistle,  especially  in  his  Sckriftbeweis  (cJi.  i. — x.),  are  very  com- 
plete and  comprehensive.  Taken  all  together,  they  furnish  the 
most  valuable  hints  which  have  yet  been  given  as  to  the  purj^ose, 
plan  and  connection  of  thought  in  the  epistle,  and  will  be  recog- 
nized as  doing  so  by  every  one  who  is  more  than  a  superficial 
inquirer "  (Delitzsch,  Comm.  on  the  Hebrews,  vol.  I.  p.  33; 
Clark's  For.  Theol.  Lib.).  What  Delitzsch  judged  so  favorably, 
as  seen  in  brief  form,  and  conveying  chiefly  hints,  we  now  have 
in  a  full  and  mature  form,  adjusted  to  contemporary  opposing 
criticism,  in  von  Hofmann's  work,  entitled  :  Die  heillge  Schrifi 
neuen  Testaments  zusammenhdngend  untersucht,  Nordlingen, 
1873,  of  which  part  fifth,  comprising  561  pp.  8vo.,  is  a  com- 
mentary on  our  epistle.  It  would  be  an  invaluable  gift  to 
English  Christians  were  a  suitable  translation  of  it  published. 
Such,  however,  is  von  Hofmann's  style  that,  as  Godet  says  :  "  its 
intrinsic  purity  does  not  vindicate  itself  till  one  has  read  a  pas- 
sage four  or  five  times  "  (Comm.  on  Romans,  Introduction).  He 
can  only  be  properly  translated,  therefore,  by  scholars  that  are 
able  to  write  books  of  their  own,  and  who  are  unlikely  to  under- 
take the  drudgery  of  such  translation.  But  it  is  possible  for 
many,  that  are  familiar  with  the  German,  to  read  von  Hofmann 
for  themselves ;  and  it  is  a  grateful  labor  to  reproduce  in  one's 
own  fashion  what  one  has  so  learned.  This  the  writer  has  done 
in  the  composition  that  is  hereby  published.  His  chief  encour- 
agement to  the  publication  is  the  belief,  that  it  is  rendering  no 
small  service  to  those  who  would  make  deeper  studies  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  to  present  to  them,  even  in  this  fashion, 


PREFACE.  V 

some  of  the  fruits  of  von  Hofraann's  investigations.  These  will 
be  recognized  by  the  references  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  and  par- 
ticularly by  extended  quotations.  At  chapter  xiii.,  however,  the 
writer  has  given  von  Hofmann's  exposition  instead  of  one  of  his 
own  composition.  Beside  the  motives  for  this  that  are  stated  in 
a  preface  to  the  translation  itself,  the  following  considerations 
had  their  influence.  There  is  an  impression  in  English  circles 
and  elsewhere,  that  von  Hofmann  is  whimsical.  Godet  says  of 
his  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  "  he  delights  in 
exegetical  discoveries  which  one  can  hardly  be  persuaded  that  he 
seriously  believes  in  himself."  The  writer  cannot  concur  in  this 
opinion,  though  often  unable  himself  to  accept  von  Hofraann's 
views.  As  English  readers  may  never  have  seen  a  sample  of  his 
exegetical  work,  the  translation  that  concludes  the  present  expo- 
sition is  given  that  they  may  judge  for  themselves. 

Having  made  the  foregoing  acknowledgment  of  indebtedness 
to  von  Hofmann,  the  writer  deems  it  just  to  himself  to  say,  that 
the  present  exposition  is  not  merely  a  study  of  that  author,  nor 
a  reproduction  of  him.  It  is  a  study  of  the  epistle  itself  By 
quotations  from  other  authors,  but  especially  by  the  references  at 
the  foot  of  the  page,  it  will  appear  how  fully  he  has  consulted 
those  that  have  labored  on  the  same  subject.  Except  where  the 
contrary  distinctly  appears,  these  references  are  marks  of  the 
writer's  own  reading  and  observation.  It  has  not,  indeed,  been 
deemed  necessary  to  consult  every  author  of  note  that  has  written 
on  the  Hebrews.  But  it  is  important  to  such  studies  that  one 
should  consider  everything  of  value  that  has  been  published  on 
his  subject.  The  writer  believes  that,  in  the  sources  he  has  con- 
sulted, everything  of  this  sort  has  at  least  met  his  eye,  whether 
it  has  sufficiently  arrested  his  attention  or  not. 

Something  should  be  said  in  explanation  of  the  references 
made  to  authors.     One  object,  of  course,  is  to  give  credit  where 


VI  PREFACE. 

it  is  due.  But  in  most  cases  an  author  is  referred  to  simply  as  a 
sponsor  for  a  view  that  is  mentioned,  whether  for  concurrence  or 
rejection.  By  this  it  will  appear,  that  not  merely  imaginary 
views  are  handled.  Moreover,  the  writer  thereby  avoids  the 
appearance  of  representing  as  the  common  understanding  of 
Christians  what  is  not  so,  and  also  of  presenting  as  his  own 
what  has  been  given  by  others.  Beyond  this  no  system  in 
naming  authors  has  been  used.  They  will  be  found,  on  one 
account  or  other,  good  representatives  of  the  views  with  which 
they  are  mentioned.  No  rule  has  been  observed  to  choose  the  best. 
Often  accident  at  the  time  of  reading  determined  the  writer's 
choice.  By  using  the  words  "  with,"  "  against,"  nothing  more  is 
meant  than  by  pro  and  con.  viz.,  merely  to  indicate  briefly  the  atti- 
tude of  the  author  named  toward  the  subject  under  consideration. 
Whether  one  or  many  names  be  cited,  it  is  rarely  with  the  pur- 
pose of  supporting  an  opinion  by  the  influence  of  a  scholarly 
name,  ^ne  must  not  seek  to  determine  what  shall  be  accepted 
as  the  meaning  of  revelation  by  taking  a  vote  of  scholars. 
When  the  labor  of  students  is  devoted  to  a  canvass  of  that 
sort,  it  is  a  sign  that  knowledge  has  come  to  a  stand-still. 
It  is  possible  for  every  student  of  the  word  ultimately  to  know 
for  himself  whether  it  means  what  he  has  apprehended  it  to 
mean.  Only  this  conviction  can  sustain  one  in  the  study  that  is 
demanded  in  order  to  comply  with  the  injunction  :  "  Search  the 
Scriptures."  The  present  composition  was  originally  written 
out,  and  is  now  published  with  a  view  to  realize  the  truth  of  this 
conviction. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  volume  presents  none  of  the  matter 
usually  treated  under  the  head  of  Introduction  in  that  form. 
No  apology,  it  is  supposed,  is  needed  for  this.  Yet  if  there 
Were,  the  writer  would  express  the  opinion,  that  a  disj^ropor- 
tionate  amount  of  labor  has  of  late  years  been  expended  on  that 


PREFACE.  ,  Vll 

department.  One  may,  therefore,  feel  himself  dispensed  from 
traversing  the  same  ground.  The  more  so,  because,  in  the 
interest  of  the  inquiries  :  who  wrote  ?  and  when?  and  under  what 
circumstances  ?  and  what  has  been  the  history  of  controversy  on 
these  topics?  the  knowledge  of  "  what  is  written,"  and  the  ability 
to  answer  the  question  :  "  how  readest  thou  ?  "  seem  in  danger  of 
perishing.  The  most  important  question  belonging  to  Introduc- 
tion is  the  Authorship.  The  writer  believes  that  Paul  was  the 
Author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  earliest  definite  tradition 
of  the  Church  ascribed  it  to  him.  The  epistle  itself  must  determine 
whether  we  shall  abide  by  that  tradition  or  not.  Notice  is  taken 
of  all  that  seems  to  throw  most  light  on  this  question  as  it  occurs 
in  the  text.     And  that  is  the  best  place  to  deal  with  it. 

In  regard  to  the  genuine  text  of  our  epistle,  the  labor  of  expo- 
sition is  much  facilitated  by  the  general  harmony  of  the  latest 
critical  editors.  The  viii.  edition  of  Tischendorf  and  that  of 
Westcott  and  Hort  have  been  taken  as  the  text  of  the  present 
work.  Where  they  differ,  which  is  very  rarely,  and  where,  for 
reasons  of  his  own  or  derived  from  others,  a  reading  different  from 
theirs  is  adopted,  due  notice  is  given.     The  instances  are  few. 

In  regard  to  the  translations  of  the  text  of  the  epistle  that 
appear  in  this  volume,  it  seems  expedient  to  say,  that  tliey  are 
not  intended  as  an  improved  version.  They  are,  indeed,  intended 
to  be  correct.  They  may  be  that,  however,  without  being  the  best 
for  a  version  for  English  Christians.  It  is  often  said  by  those  who 
are  displeased  with  the  Kevisiou  of  1881,  that,  while  it  is  poor 
as  a  version,  it  is  good  as  a  commentary.  The  translations  of 
the  present  volume  are  intended  to  serve  the  purpose  so  expressed. 
Where  criticism  of  the  versions  of  1611,  1881  is  intended,  it  is 
done  expressly. 

The  writer  has  aimed  at  expressing  himself  in  as  lucid  a  style 
as  the  nature  of  his  investigations   admits  of,  and  by  adding 


Vm  PREFACE. 

translations  to  Greek  words  when  used,  has  even  hoped  to 
enlist  readers  unfamiliar  with  the  Greek.  He  fears,  never- 
theless, that  those  who  may  have  patience  to  read  will  often  feel 
that  this  mark  has  not  been  reached.  The  writer's  chief  aim, 
however,  has  been  another,  which  may  be  expressed  in  the  language 
of  Joseph  Mede  in  a  letter  to  L.  de  Dieu  :  Eo  enim  ingenio  sum 
(delicatulo,  an  morosof)  ut  nisi  ubi  interpretatio  commode  et  absque 
salebris  eat,  nunquam  mihi  satisfacere  soleam.  (Jos.  Mede ;  Works, 
fol.  London,  1672,  p.  569.)  With  this  superior  aim,  it  is  likely 
that  the  other  has  often  been  overlooked. 

SAMUEL.  T.  LOWRIE. 

Ewing  Manse,  near  Trenton,  N.  J. 

August,  1884. 


The  names  of  authors  referred  to  in  the  present  work  may  be  easily 
identified  in  any  good  list  of  commentators  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
It  seems  expedient  only  to  name  the  following  as  the  most  recent  writers  on 
the  subject : 

Dr.  Kay,  in  The  (Speaker's)  Bible  Commentary. 

Dr.  MouLTON,  in  The  (Ellicott's)  Handy  Commentary. 

Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  in  the  Hand-Books  for  Bi)jle  Classes. 

Dr.  Angus,  in  The  Popular  Commentary,  Schaff. 


AN    EXPLANATION 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 


I.  1.  God  having  of  old  time  by  divers  portions  and  in  divers 
manners  spoken  unto  the  fathers  in  the  prophets,  2.  hath  at  the  end 
of  these  days  spoken  unto  us  in  a  Son  whom  he  appointed  heir  of 
all  things,  through  whom  also  he  made  the  ages. 

Our  epistle  in  the  original  begins  very  sonorously  with  two 
euphonious  adverbs  conjoined  by :  and,  which,  missing  sadly  the 
euphony,  we  translate  :  by  divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners. 
Being  put  so  prominently,  these  adverbs  emphasize  the  traits  of 
the  revelations  so  described,  and  thus  a  contrast  is  intimated  in 
the  revelation  of  which  Christ  was  the  agent,  which  was  not 
given  piece-meal  and  in  many  diiferent  fashions,  but  is  a  revela- 
tion whole  and  complete,  and  uniform  in  manner.^  This 
description  is  not  merely  for  description's  sake.  It  is  the  appro- 
priate preface  to  the  following  discourse,  wherein  "the  divers 
portions  and  manners  "  (not  all,  but  prominent  ones)  are  taken 
in  detail,  viz.,  angels,  Moses,  law,  sacrifices,  tabernacle ;  and  to  all 
these  is  opposed  the  one  "Jesus  Christ,  the  same,  yesterday, 
to-day  and  forever."  Referring  to  the  period  of  divine  revela- 
tions preceding  Christ  by  the  term  :  of  old  time,  it  is  plain  that 
the  Apostle  means  the  whole  period.  And  since  he  designates 
the  agents  of  the  revelations  in  the  plural  number,  by  tlie  name 
of  the  prophets,  and,  in  accordance  with  the  facts  of  all  revela- 
tion preceding,  describes  their  revelations,  as  given  in  many  parta 

^  So  von  Hofinann. 


2         REVELATION    BEGINNING   WITH    THE   PROPHETS        [i.  1,  2. 

and  in  a  variety  of  ways,  it  is  evident  that  he  means  all  pre- 
ceding revelations  of  the  Old  Testament.  Moreover,  by  saying : 
of  old  time— to  the  fathers,  he  implies  just  such  an  extended 
period  since  last  the  voice  of  revelation  was  heard  as  our 
canonical  scriptures  show  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
Thus  we  have  an  intimation  that  neither  the  Apostle  nor  his 
readers  regarded  as  divine  revelation  compositions  like  the  Old 
Testament  Apocrypha,  which  being  quite  or  comparatively  recent 
productions  at  the  time  of  this  writing,  would  neither  be 
described  as  of  old  time,  nor  as  spoken  to  the  fathers.^ 

With  this  old  time  of  revelation  and  its  agents  the  prophets, 
the  Apostle  contrasts  the  period  of  revelation  by  Christ  and 
Christ  the  agent.  Both  the  period,  as  a  distinct  event,  and  the 
agent,  as  one  totally  different,  are  emphatic.  This,  in  the  sequel, 
becomes  plain  with  respect  to  the  period,  when  we  see  the  period 
and  its  revelation  described  as  doing  away  with  the  most  import- 
ant and  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  the  period  that  precedes 
it.  With  respect  to  the  agent,  the  intended  contrast  is  so  obvious 
as  to  need  no  remark.  The  Author's  purpose  is  to  show  that  he 
supersedes  all  the  agents  of  revelation  that  appeared  before  him. 
The  revelation  of  old  time  was  to  the  fathers;  that  of  the 
present  is  to  us ;  such  is  the  Apostle's  mode  of  expression.  In  this 
we  notice  the  natural  mode  of  expression  in  a  discourse  where  both 
writer  and  readers  are  exclusively  Hebrews.^  These  revelations, 
from  first  to  last,  were  to  the  chosen  people  of  God,  the  descend- 
ants of  Abraham.  The  Apostle  calls  the  present:  at  the  end 
of  these  days.  Were  it  simply  the  present  that  he  meant,  the 
Author  would  use  some  other  phrase  than :  these  days.^  This 
phrase  always  refers  to  a  present  previously  expressed  in  the 
context.  The  only  thing  of  the  sort  represented  in  our  context 
is  the  period  of  God's  communicating  with  men  by  revelation. 
This  the  Author  treats  as  one  period :  these  days ;  but  distin- 
guishes between  what  has  been  and  what  is  now.     What  has 

1  So  Bleek. 

^  Not  that  the  writer's  thoughts  were  exclusively  occupied  with  the  Hebrews, 
like  Pliilo.     So  Farrar,  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  Chap.  xvi.  §  1. 
^  Comp.  ix.  9. 


i.  1,  2.]  ENDS    AVITH    THE   SON    AS    FINAL   AGENT.  3 

been  he  calls :  of  old ;  and  we  mnst  snppose  that  he  attaches  the 
pregnant  meaning  to  that  expression  that  he  develops,  viii.  13  : 
"  But  that  which  is  becoming  old  and  waxeth  aged  is  nigh  unto 
vanishing  away."  That  which  is  now  he  calls  :  at  the  end,  which 
expresses  that  the  course  of  revelation,  or  of  these  days,  has  come 
to  an  end,  and  that  what  God  spoke  by  a  Son  is  the  final  revela- 
tion of  all.^  This  interpretation  of  his  meaning  is  confirmed  by 
all  that  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  say  in  exaltation  of  the  last- 
named  agent  of  revelation,  which  makes  it  inconceivable  that 
another  should  follow  Him,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  entire 
epistle  assumes  that  in  Christ  we  have  the  final  revelation,  and 
does  not  contain  a  word  that  intimates  that  God  will  speak  again 
to  others  of  later  date.  Of  both  periods  of  revelation  the 
Apostle  says :  God  spoke,  not  "  has  spoken  "  (the  aorist,  not  the 
perfect  tense).  What  was  so  spoken  may  still  speak  to  us.  In 
the  sequel  we  find  the  Apostle  appealing  to  the  old-time  revela- 
tion as  still  speaking,  as  well  as  to  the  final  revelation. 

The  great  and  distinctive  fact  of  the  revelation  is,  that  God 
spoke  to  us  by  a  Son  whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all  things.  This 
marks  the  present  as  a  special  era  of  revelation  inconceivably 
superior  to  all  that  had  preceded,  and  the  statement  presents  the 
truth  that  the  Apostle  proposes  to  set  forth  in  all  its  significance, 
and  in  some  of  its  transcendent  consequences  as  they  especially 
affect  God's  covenant  people  Israel. 

By  saying:  a  Son,  instead  of  using  the  definite  article,  the 
Author  emphasizes  the  relation  that  this  final  agent  of  revelation 
sustains  to  God.^  He  is  a  Son,  and  thus  infinitely  superior  to 
prophets.  To  this  he  joins  the  expression  of  what  sort  of  a  Son 
He  is,  viz.,  whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all  things.  This  qualifying 
expression  must  be  read,  without  an  intervening  comma,  in  most 
intimate  connection  with  the  word  Son,  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
notion  intended,  and  not  as  the  first  of  a  series  of  things  predi- 
cated of  the  Son,  and  of  co-ordinate  worth  with  the  predicates 
following.     A  Son  expresses  what  this  agent  was  and  is  in  His 

'  How  this  comprehends  also,  in  the  Apostle's  view,  what  is  communicated 
by  the  agents  of  Christ  will  be  noticed  at  ii.  3,  4. 
^  So  Bleek,  von  Ilofinann. 


4  WHO   WAS    APPOINTED    HEIR   OF   ALL   THINGS.       [i.  1,  2. 

own  nature  as  related  to  the  Father,  and  apart  from,  and  there- 
fore before  His  being  appointed  heir  of  all  things.  The  latter 
expression  points  to  something  historical,  yet  something  historical 
in  a  transcendent  and  eternal  sense,  seeing  it  preceded  the  making 
of  the  ages,  i.  e.,  history  in  the  common  sense.  If  the  idea  arises, 
that  the  expression  a  Son  suggests  the  notion  of  other  sons  than 
the  one  here  referred  to,  the  idea  is  excluded  by  the  qualifying 
expression  that  completes  the  notion  "  Sou."  "A  Son  appointed 
heir  of  all  things  "  excludes  the  idea  of  any  other  son  like  this. 
The  complete  phrase  is,  in  fact,  another  expression  for  "  an  only 
Son."  All  things  is  to  be  taken  as  comprehensively  as  possible, 
signifying  all  that  such  "  a  Son  "  can  inherit  from  such  a  Father. 
It  can  mean  nothing  less  than  it  does  in  ver.  3,  where  the  con- 
text requires  us  to  understand  by  "all  things,"  all  that  is 
external  to  God.  The :  making  of  the  ages  is  only  a  particular 
under  this  universal  term ;  and  this  particular  becoming  in  turn 
a  universal,  the  work  of  redemption  is  a  particular  under  that. 
Calling  this  Son  an  "heir"  expresses  that  what  he  enjoys  as  his 
own  he  gets,  as  is  a  son's  right,  by  inheritance  from  the  Father  -^ 
and  the  term  "  appointed  "  is  but  the  correlative  of  that  notion 
expressed  with  reference  to  the  Father,  who  gives  the  Son  His 
proper  due.  Thus  the  Author  completes  the  expression  "  a  Son  " 
by  the  notions  necessary  to  the  very  relation  of  a  father  and  son. 
He  uses  this  comprehensive  representation  because,  as  the  sequel 
shows,  his  aim  is,  in  the  way  peculiar  to  this  epistle  :  "  to  make 
known  the  mystery  of  God's  will,  according  to  His  good  pleasure 
which  He  purposed  in  Christ  unto  a  dispensation  of  the  fullness 
of  the  times,  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ,  the  things  in  the 
heavens  and  the  things  upon  the  earth, — in  whom  also  all  are 
made  a  heritage  that  hope  in  Christ."  ^ 

The  expressions  :  whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  and  : 
hy  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds,  are  not,  as  is  commonly 
done,  to  be  taken  as  co-ordinate  statements  meant  to  display  the 
greatness  of  the  Son. 

This  appears  not  only  in  the  way  we  have  seen  above  and 
from  the  comparative  importance  of  the  things  affirmed,  but  also 

1  Comp.  Bleek.  ^  Eph.  i.  10  sqq. 


i.  1,  2.]  WHO   ALSO   MADE   THE   AGES.  5 

from  the  grammatical  form  in  whicli  the  expressions  are  con- 
nected. In  verse  3  we  see  how  the  Author  does  co-ordinate  such 
notions  with  this  aim,  by  using  a  uniform  construction.  By  com- 
paring the  xai  <J;'  ol)  of  ii.  10,  we  see  that  in  our  verse  the  con- 
junction is  emphatic,  meaning  "  also."  It  conjoins  a  notion  that 
the  Author  means  shall  be  noticed  particularly.  It  is,  as  said 
above,  a  particular  under  the  universal  term :  "  heir  of  all 
things ; "  but  it  is  the  particular  that  is  important  to  what  he  is 
going  to  represent.^  By :  the  worlds  or  ages  is  of  course  not  meant 
the  astronomical  notion  which  we  mean  by  that  phrase.  That 
Avas  an  utterly  unfamiliar  notion  to  Hebrews,  for  which  they 
had,  therefore,  no  current  expression  such  as  this  is  that  we  are 
considering.  The  nearest  notion  that  they  had  to  our  astro- 
nomical conceptions  they  were  wont  to  express  in  such  language 
as  we  have  in  ver.  10.  Nor  does  the  word  mean  the  same  as 
Cosmos..^  According  to  Jewish  conceptions,  reflected  in  post- 
Biblical  Hebrew,  the  totality  of  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  world 
comprised  a  multitude  of  ages,  variously  determined,  which  con- 
stituted so  many  states  of  the  world,  and  pertained  to  human 
history  rather  than  to  material  things.  Thus  the  term  "  world  " 
extends  to  human  conditions  after  earth's  history  shall  be  finished, 
as  in  the  expression:  "world  without  end."^  These  were  so 
many  "  ages "  or  "  worlds,"  much  as  we  speak  of  the  Roman 
world,  the  ancient  and  modern  world,  the  world  of  science,  etc. 
As  distinct  states  of  the  world's  history,  their  existence  and  con- 
stitution may  be  ascribed  to  God,  not  in  the  sense  of  creation, 
but  of  "  making  the  .worlds,"  as  in  our  verse,  or  of  "  preparing 
the  worlds,"  as  in  xi.  3.  Thus  when  the  Apostle  says,  that  God 
by  the  Son  made  the  ages,  he  means  the  works  of  providence  and 
not  of  creation.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  statement  is  not 
something  irrelevant  and  interjected  witliout  logical  connection 
in  the  context,  as  some  suppose.*  AVhat  the  Apostle  here  calls 
"  the  end  of  these  days  "  (ver.  1),  he  describes,  ix.  26,  as  "  the 
consummation  of  the  ages,"  when  Christ  was  manifested  to  put 

'  Comp.  1  Cor.  XV.  1,  2,  a  similar  conjoining  of  several  expressions  intro- 
ducing matters  important  to  the  argument  the  writer  is  about  to  make. 
^  Against  Bleek.  *  See  Del.  *  e.  g.  Stuart  in  loc. 


6  A   PERFECT   REVELATION   OF   GOD.  [i.  3. 

away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself.  By  saying  here  that  Clirist 
made  the  ages,  He  sets  him  forth  in  that  light  of  sovereign 
authority  tliat  prepares  the  way  for  one  of  the  chief  aims  of  the 
present  epistle.  For  the  Apostle  is  about  to  show,  that  the 
coming  of  this  final  agent  of  revelation  brings  in  a  new  world  or 
age,  and  supersedes  the  old.  As  the  context  also  intimates  a 
contrast  between  Christ  and  the  prophets,  the  statement  we  are 
considering  marks  a  most  significant  point  of  contrast. 

Having  described  the  era  and  the  agent  of  the  final  revelation, 
the  Apostle  points  to  the  glorious  position  that  agent  assumed 
when  His  work  on  earth  was  done.  A  further  progress  in  the 
thought  is  marked  by  passing  from  the  statement  of  what  God 
has  done  to  what  the  Son  did  and  does. 

Ver.  3.  Who  being  effulgence  of  his  glory  and  impress  of  his 
substance,  also  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  when 
he  had  made  purification  of  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high. 

In  this  verse  the  main  thought  is  expressed  by  the  direct  sen- 
tence :  he  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high.  On 
this  the  three  preceding  participial  clauses  are  dependent.  The 
first  two  of  these  clauses  (the  first  being  a  double  clause)  are  in 
the  present  tense;  but  preceding  the  direct  verb  in  the  aorist 
they  have  the  force  of  the  imperfect.  The  third  is  formed  with 
the  aorist  participle.  The  whole  verse,  however,  is  connected 
closely  with  ver.  2,  and  both  vers.  2  and  3  are  descriptive  of  the 
Son.  The  Author  is  still  representing  the  final  agent  of  reve- 
lation for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  contrast  with  all  that 
preceded  Him.  Our  verse  3  is  intended  to  show  that  all  that  the 
Son  was  in  Himself  and  by  appointment  He  still  remains.  Thus 
what  He  did  on  earth  is  mentioned  parenthetically  :  having  made 
purification  of  sins.  Some  expression  covering  the  period  when 
He  appeared  on  earth  is  necessary  to  express  the  idea  that,  in  what 
He  was  before  and  in  what  He  is  after  that  revelation  was  made. 
He  continues  the  same.  If,  instead  of  the  phrase  we  have,  the 
Author  had  resumed  the  expression  of  ver.  2,  and  simply  said  : 
"  having  spoken  to  us  for  God  He  sat  down,"  etc.,  no  one  could 
have  mistaken  the  parenthetical  character  of  the  clause  that  has 


i.  3.]  BEING   DIVINE   IN   GLORY   AND   SUBSTANCE.  7 

just  been  pointed  out.  The  choice  of  another  expression  docs 
not  change  this  character.  That  way,  however,  of  referring  to 
the  aj)pearance  of  Clirist  on  earth  is  not  without  a  purpose.  It 
mentions  that  aspect  of  His  ministry  of  revelation  w^hich  the 
Apostle  means  particularly  to  contemplate  and  explain,  when  he 
comes  to  deal  with  the  substance  of  what  God  made  known  by 
His  Son.  But,  related  as  the  expression  is,  in  a  subordinate  way, 
to  the  direct  predicate :  "  He  sat  down,"  etc.,  the  latter  becomes 
the  first  subject  of  discourse,  and  the  former,  viz.,  Christ  dying, 
comes  in  later,  viz.,  ix.  15  sqq.,  where  compare. 

Proceeding,  then,  to  characterize  the  Son,  who  is  now  the  agent 
of  revelation,  the  Apostle  says :  lie  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on.  high.  The  preceding  clauses  in  the  present  participle 
express  His  title  to  the  position,^  while  that  in  the  aorist  marks 
when  He  took  it.  But  we  notice  that :  being  the  effulgence  of  his 
glory  and  the  impress  of  his  substance,  also  upholding  all  things 
by  the  word  of  his  power,  are  expressions  that  reiterate,  by  way 
of  interpretation,  the  substance  of  the  statements  :  "  whom  He 
made  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  He  made  the  ages"  (ver. 
2).^  This  appears  even  in  the  very  close  grammatical  conjunc- 
tion ^  of  the  first  and  second  clauses  (which  we  try  to  reproduce 
in  the  translation  by :  "also  upholding")  which  thus  reflect  the 
close  connection  of  the  two  clauses  of  ver.  2  noted  above.  What 
is  thus  described,  therefore,  belongs  in  the  same  plane  with  the 
expressions  of  ver.  2,  and  does  not,  as  some  suppose,*  express 
w^liat  the  Son  became  after  He  had  made  purification.  The 
Apostle  means  to  express,  that  as  a  Son,  and  such  as  He  is  affirmed 
to  be  in  ver.  2,  He  was  what  ver.  3,  a,  6,  describes,  and  as  such,  and 
as  thereby  entitled  so  to  do,  he  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the 

1  Cbmp.  Phil.  ii.  6. 

^  This  appears  from  the  consensus  of  New  Testament  scripture.  The  Author 
speaks  dogmatically  here,  assuming  the  knowledge  and  agreement  of  his 
readers.  Our  explanation  must  adopt  the  same  assumptions,  agreeably  to  the 
plan  of  attending  only  to  what  this  Epistle  presents  to  us.  We  may  refer, 
however,  to  Col.  i.  15-17;  Phil.  ii.  6;  Cor.  iv.  4. 

'  By  re:  see  Winer,  New  Testament  Gramm..  p.  434. 

*e.  g.,\on  Hof. 


8  UPHOLDING   ALL   THINGS    BY    HIS    WOED.  [i.  3. 

Majesty  on  high.}  He  reposed  from  the  work  He  had  done,  and 
there  reposes  in  a  station  suited  to  His  nature  and  dignity.  But 
He  is  active  in  all  that  belongs  to  the  place  He  now  has. 

Having  explained  the  logical  relation  of  the  contents  of  ver. 
3,  the  particulars  of  the  statements  call  for  our  notice. 

The  first  of  these  statements  is,  that  the  Son  is  the  eiFulgence 
of  the  glory  of  God.  The  brightness  or  effulgence  of  glory  is  the 
very  glory  itself,  as  we  may  say  the  brightness  of  the  light  is 
light.  It  was  this  understanding  of  the  words  of  the  text  that 
originated  the  Church's  watchword ;  "  Light  of  Light,"  em- 
bodied in  the  Nicene  creed,  and  that  justifies  the  inference  (1), 
"  that  the  Son  must  be  comubstantial  with  the  Father,  inasmuch 
as  what  emanates  from  light  must  itself  have  the  nature  of  light ; 
and  (2),  that  the  divine  generation  of  the  Son  must  be  at  once  a 
free  and  a  necessary  process  within  the  Godhead — similar  to  the 
relation  between  sunlight  and  the  sun."  ^ 

The  second  of  these  statements  is,  that  the  Son  is  the  impress 
of  Ms  substance.  The  word  translated  impress  means  the  stamp 
that  impresses  the  wax  with  an  image.  The  statement  here  is, 
that  the  substance  or  essence  of  God  has  in  the  Son  that  stamp 
or  imprint  of  itself  in  which  it  is  represented  so  as  to  be  plainly 
apprehended.^  In  other  words,  in  the  Son  the  divine  substance 
appears,  having  shape  and  form.  As  to  the  glory  and  the 
substance  of  God,  the  former  is  the  appearance  of  the  being  of 
God  externally ;  the  latter  is  His  being  or  essence  itself  As 
the  substance  and  glory  are  related,  so  are  the  effulgence  and  the 
stamp  or  impress. 

The  third  of  these  statements  is,  that  the  Son  upholds  all  things 
by  the  word  of  his  power.  As  has  been  noticed,  this  statement 
is  conjoined  so  intimately  with  the  two  that  precede  as  to  imply 

^  The  mention  of  His  work  of  making  purification  of  sins  suggests  to  us  the 
thought  of  Christ's  state  of  humiliation,  and  the  inquiry :  How  is  the  divine 
substance  and  glory  and  providence  of  the  Son  related  to  that  state  of  humilia- 
tion ?  But  this  suggestion  is  our  own.  The  Author's  thought  does  not  touch 
it.  The  present  language  is  silent  on  this  subject.  The  Author  mentions  the 
earthly  work  only  to  express  the  fact  of  what  took  place  after  it. 

■>■  Del.  '  So  von  Hof. 


i.  3.]  HE   MADE   PURIFICATION   FOR  SINS.  9 

that  it  is  a  notion  necessarily  or  logically  involved  in  the  truth 
that  they  express.  Obviously,  in  such  a  connection,  all  things 
signifies,  in  the  most  comprehensive  sense,  all  that  is  not  of  the 
divine  substance,  or  that  is  external  to  God.  This :  all  the  Son 
upholds,  or  bears,  and  thus  to  Him  is  ascribed  the  continuance 
of  all  things.^  He  does  this  by  the  word  of  Ms  power,  which 
expresses  that  the  power  is  His  oivn,  and  that  He  exerts  it  by  the 
utterance  of  His  will,  like  the  :  "God  said  "  of  the  original  crea- 
tion. For  this  thought  must  come  to  every  Hebrew  reader  of 
these  words.  It  is  impossible  to  use  language  that  would 
more  unequivocally  than  these  statements  affirm  the  actual  and 
proper  divinity  of  the  Son  appointed  heir  of  all  things. 

The  fourth  of  these  statements  is,  that  the  Son  made  purifica- 
tion of  sins.  As  has  been  remarked,  the  Author,  under  this  form, 
refers  to  the  fact  of  Christ  having  spoken  to  us  for  God,  without 
intending  to  point  a  contrast  between  the  humiliation  that  in- 
volved and  the  exaltation  that  is  next  described.  Said  of  God, 
this  statement  would  express  the  forgiveness  of  sins.^  But  said 
of  Christ,  as  the  sequel  of  the  epistle  shows,  it  means  the  ex- 
piation of  sins  by  blotting  them  out.  This,  as  the  middle  voice 
of  the  verb  expresses,^  He  did  of  Himself  and  as  His  own  work. 
This  sense  would  be  more  expressly  given  if  "by  Himself" 
were  part  of  the  genuine  text.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case. 
Yet  the  presence  of  the  words  in  many  MSS.  may  be  accepted  as  a 
hint  from  very  ancient  and  intelligent  readers,  perhaps  from  even 
the  first  recipients  of  the  epistle,  not  to  let  this  emphatic  mean- 
ing of  the  verb  escape  our  notice.  As  expressed  here,  the  state- 
ment means  what  is  amplified  elsewhere,^  that  what  has  the  virtue 
of  cleansing  away  sins  was  done,  once  for  all,  by  what  Christ  did 
on  earth,  viz.,  by  His  death. 

It  is  to  be  noticed,  that  all  these  statements  of  fundamental 
Christian  truths  are  not  only  made  dogmatically,  i.  e.,  without 
proof,  but  that  they  are  introduced  by  indirect  expressions.  This 
implies  that  they  were  accepted  truths  with  the  readers  of  this 

»  Comp.  Col.  i.  15-17.  '  Comp.  LXX,  Job  vii.  21. 

^  See  Kuhner,  Gram.  II.,  p.  97,  §  4.  *  Comp.  ix.  26. 


10  AND   SAT   AT   GOD's   RIGHT   HAND.  [i.  3. 

epistle.  The  Apostle  does  not  treat  them  as  matters  that  need  to 
be  established,  but  freely  states  them  as  the  groundwork  of  what 
he  means  to  prove  by  an  extended  argument.  This  reflection  is 
very  important  to  a  clear  comprehension  of  the  matter  that  is  to 
follow.  It  throws  light  on  the  doctrinal  status  of  those  whom 
the  Apostle  is  instructing.  We  will  mistake  the  meaning  of 
much  that  he  writes  if,  on  the  one  hand,  we  ascribe  to  his  readers 
too  little  Christian  knowledge,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  too  much. 
The  verse  before  us  (ver.  3)  is  proof  that  they  were  familiar,  at 
least,  with  no  inconsiderable  amount  of  fundamental  truth,  and 
we  may  infer  that  as  much  as  this  was  included  in  the  confession 
of  their  faith  in  Christ.'  We  must  include  in  this  reflection  the 
fifth  and  final  statement  of  our  verse. 

The  fifth  and  final  statement  (this  is  by  the  direct  verb  and  is 
the  chief  statement)  is,  that  the  Son  sat  down  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  on  high.  Thus  the  Apostle  expresses  that  Christ 
returned  to  heaven.  He  is  not  prompted  to  use  the  word  on  high 
in  order  to  point  a  contrast  with  a  previous  state  of  humiliation  ; 
for  there  has  been  no  expression  or  suggestion  of  that  humiliation. 
It  is  because  the  Apostle  himself  is  exalting  his  subject  as 
the  final  agent  of  revelation  that  he  concludes  the  description 
with  these  words.  There  he  leaves  Him,  seated  on  high,  and 
there  he  contemplates  Him,  and  turns  the  thoughts  of  his  readers 
to  Him  in  all  the  subsequent  discourse.  The  place  is  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Majesty,  which  is  a  periphrasis  for  the  right  hand  of 
God.^  The  right  hand  signifies  the  post  of  confidence  and  execu- 
tive authority  and  power. 

In  all  this  representation  of  the  Son  that  treats  so  particularly 
of  His  relation  to  God,  the  Author  does  not  use  the  name  Father 
for  God.  This,  moreover,  characterizes  the  entire  epistle.  Through- 
out the  epistle  the  Father  (for  the  Author  abundantly  expresses 
the  fact  that  He  is  a  Father)  is  always  called  God,  when  the 
relation  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  involved.  Only  in  xii.  7, 
9,  does  the  Author  call  God  Father,  and  that  is  in  relation  to  us, 
His  children. 

'  Comp.  iii.  1.  2  Comp.  Del. 


i.  4.]  AN   AGENT   OF   REVELATION.  11 

The  Apostle's  representation  of  the  greatness  of  the  final  reve- 
lation issues  in  the  exaltation  of  the  Son  who  is  the  agent  of  it. 
This  he  has  done,  without  express  comparison,  by  stating  what 
the  Son  is,  and  simply  distinguishing  between  former  revelations 
and  their  agents,  and  the  present  revelation  and  its  agent.  But 
he  aims  to  show  that  the  present  is  a  greater  and  better  revela- 
tion, and  to  prepare  the  way  for  showing  that  it  supersedes  the 
old.  This  involves  comparison.  He  means  to  do  it  by  com- 
parison of  the  final  agent  with  all  preceding  agents.  What  has 
been  stated  so  far  has  been  with  a  view  to  this,  and  he  proceeds 
without  pause  to  that  comparison  : 

Ver.  4.  Having  become  by  so  much  better  than  the  angels  as 
he  hath  inherited  a  more  excellent  name  than  they. 

The  suddenness  with  which  this  subject  of  comparison, 
viz.,  the  angels,  is  introduced  occasions  some  perplexity.  But 
in  the  sequel  we  notice  that  Moses  (ii.  2),  and  Melchizedek 
(v.  10 ;  vi.  20),  and  Levi  (vii.  5),  are  in  turn  brought  into 
comparison  with  as  little  preface.  We  shall  also  have  occasion 
to  notice  in  the  Author  a  similar  manner  of  introducing;  turns  of 
thought,  and  obvious  applications,  and  conclusions  from  state- 
ments made.  We  may  therefore  treat  this  as  a  matter  of  style 
with  him.  The  fitness  of  the  present  comparison  is  obvious 
enough.^  The  Hebrews  believed  that  angels  were  the  agents  of 
revelation,  and  especially  that  they  were  concerned  in  the  giving 
of  the  law  by  Moses.^  The  Apostle  refers  to  this  belief  as  some- 
thing that  must  of  course  suggest  itself  to  the  minds  of  his 
readers  when  the  subject  the  agents  of  revelation  came  up.  They 
would  admit  that  Christ  was  greater  than  the  prophets.  But 
how  about  the  angels  ?  Angels  must  naturally  be  the  chief  sub- 
jects of  comparison,  because  they  have  precedence  of  other  agents, 
both  as  prior  to  and  greater  than  all  others,  Christ  alone  excepted. 
INIoreover,  they  too,  as  Christ  himself,  were  agents  that  came  from 
heaven  to  speak  to  men  for  God.  Christ  is  better  than  angels. 
The  Apostle  says  he  became  better.  We  are  to  understand  this 
as  expressing  more  than  simply  that  Christ  is  better.    He  became 

^  Comp.  Alford,  ^  See  i.  14;  ii.  2  ;  comp.  Gal.  iii.  19. 


12  BETTEE    FOR   US   THAN   THE   ANGELS,  [i.  4. 

better,  which  denotes  something  historical  in  the  common  sense  of 
things  that  come  to  pass.  But  this  becoming  does  not  refer  to  the 
session  "  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty,"  as  if  that  constituted 
the  Son  better.^  Nor  are  we  to  compare  ^  what  is  said,  ii,  8,  9, 
as  if  there  we  have  expressed  how  Christ  was  for  a  while  lower 
than  angels,  and  here,  as  there,  we  have  the  antithesis  of  that.^ 
As  has  been  noted  (at  ver.  3),  we  have  no  expression  or  sugges- 
tion in  our  context  of  the  humiliation  of  Christ.  Every  word  is 
in  the  direction  of  displaying  His  absolute  greatness  with  compari- 
son only  of  what  is  less  great.  Nor  is  it  expressed  here  that 
He  obtained  this  greatness  through  His  incarnation.*  Our  verse 
itself  defines  the  becoming  better  by  referring  it  to  the  name  of 
this  better  agent  of  revelation.  The  name  was  before  the  minis- 
try of  revelation.  The  becoming  belongs  in  the  same  plane  as 
the  "  appointing  heir  of  all  things  "  and  "  making  the  ages."  As 
by :  became  better  is  meant  something  in  the  common  historical 
sense,  it  can  intimate  only  what  the  Son  became  to  us,  by  coming 
as  the  agent  of  revelation,  as  the  angels  became  to  us  agents  of 
revelation.  The  angels  did  not  become  angelic  in  nature  and 
dignity  and  name  by  so  coming ;  nor  did  the  Sou  inherit  His 
name  by  what  He  did.*  The  angels  were  good  as  agents  of  reve- 
lation ;  the  Son  became  to  us  better  as  such  an  agent.  Thus  the 
comparison  expressed  by :  became  better  does  not  touch  the  diifer- 
ence  between  Christ  and  the  angels  in  themselves  considered,  but 
as  they  are  related  to  us. 

The  Apostle  expresses  the  superiority  in  question  by :  better. 
This  touches  the  key-note  of  the  whole  epistle.®  All  through  it 
we  are  held  to  this  comparison  by  the  expressions :  "  better  hope," 
vii.  19;  "better  covenant,"  "better  promises,"  viii.  6;  "better 
sacrifices,"  ix.  23  ;  "  better  possession,"  x.  34  ;  "  better  resurrec- 
tion," xi.  35.  Better  than  what  preceded,  and  better  for  us  (xi. 
40)  than  for  those  before  us,  is  the  notion  intended  by  the  com- 

^  Against  Davidson.  '^  As  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford,  von  Hof.,  etc. 

^  See  below  on  ii.  7.  *  Against  Angus. 

^  If  Phil.  ii.  9, 10,  be  urged,  let  it  be  noticed  that  the  name  is  another ;  it  is  a 
given  name ;  it  was  also  Christ's  name  before  his  exaltation. 
^  Comp.  Farrar,  Chap,  xviii.,  §  1. 


i.  4.]  AS   HIS   NAME   IS   MORE  EXCELLENT.  13 

parisou.  For  a  notion  so  distinctive  we  may  venture  to  coin  a 
word,  and  shall  hereafter  use  for  this  the  word  betterness. 
Wherein  the  betterness  consists  is  to  be  a  chief  part  of  the 
showing  of  this  epistle.  For  the  present,  the  aim  is  to  produce 
the  conviction  that  it  must  be  a  better  revelation.  The  method 
is  aprioral,  establishing  the  betterness  of  the  agent  and  deducing 
it  from  that. 

In  proof  of  this  betterness  Paul  appeals  to  a  name  :  He  hath 
inherited  a  more  excellent  name  than  they.  We  may  call  this  a 
characteristically  Hebrew  way  of  arguing.  Hebrews  attached 
more  importance  to  a  name  than  we  do.  With  them  names  were 
things ;  and  among  them  it  would  never  become  a  proverb  to  say : 
"What  is  there  in  a  name?"  What  is  more  important,  it  is 
Scriptural  to  reason  in  this  way  ;  especially  of  all  names  given 
by  God.  What  God  calls  a  thing  that  it  is.  His  calling  it  so 
constitutes  it  such,  or  reveals  its  true  nature.  The  latter  is 
exemplified  in  the  case  before  us.  For  the  Apostle  says,  the 
son  has  inherited  His  name.  The  perfect  tense  refers  this  matter 
to  a  different  plane  from  that  to  which  are  to  be  referred  the 
events  "  appointed  "  (ver.  2)  and  "  became  "  (ver.  4),  expressed  in 
the  aorist.  He  was  already  a  Son  when  the  appointing  and  becom- 
ing occurred.  The  perfect  tense  expresses  that  He  received  the 
name  Son,  and  still  has  it,  and  by  inheritance,  and  that  without 
expressing  when.  In  this  is  implied  an  unexpressed  contrast 
with  respect  to  the  angels,  who  have  their  name  otherwise,  i.  e., 
God  made  them  what  they  are  by  giving  them  their  names.  It 
is  in  effect,  however,  the  substance  involved  in  these  names  that 
is  contrasted,  and  our  way  of  thinking  compels  us  to  think  of 
this.  The  only  Son  of  God,  appointed  heir  of  all  things  by 
God,  is  a  better  agent  to  speak  to  us  for  God  than  the  angels, 
because  He  is  more  excellent  in  Himself  and  in  His  relations  to 
God  than  angels.  Moreover,  the  word  diaipnpwzspov  means,  not 
only  an  excellence  greater  in  degree,  but  also  different  in  kind. 

The  Apostle  proceeds  to  illustrate  the  superior  excellence  of 
the  Son  implied  in  His  name,  and  the  illustration  continues 
through  the  next  ten  verses  to  the  end  of  the  present  chapter. 
Such  extended  amplification  of  this  theme  is  due  to  the  import- 


14 


THIS    EXCELLENCY   ILLUSTRATED  [i.  5-13. 


ance  of  the  subjects  compared,  viz.,  the  Son  and  the  angels. 
The  superiority  of  the  Sou  to  them  is  less  obvious  than  His 
superiority  to  the  prophets.  Moreover,  establishing  this,  the 
Apostle  establishes  the  superiority  of  this  final  agent  of  revela- 
tion to  all  others,  and  consequently,  and  in  a  universal  way,  the 
betterness  of  what  he  reveals. 

The  Author's  method  of  establishing  this  superiority  is  by 
illustration.  He  aims  to  make  an  impression  of  the  difference 
between  one  that  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  and  angels.  His 
manner  is  dramatic.  He  introduces  God  as  speaking  to  the  one 
and  of  the  others.  There  is  admirable  skill  in  this,  inasmuch  as 
it  illustrates  the  comparative  virtue  of  the  different  agents  in 
precisely  the  respect  in  which  one  might  be  a  better  agent  than 
the  others  to  speak  for  God  to  us,  viz. :  the  intimacy,  confidence 
and  authority  the  agent  enjoys  with  God.  The  language  we  are 
to  consider  is  not  an  appeal  to  Old  Testament  scripture  for  proof  of 
the  statement  that  the  Son  is  superior  to  angels.  The  proof  of 
that  is  in  the  more  excellent  name  itself,  or,  in  other  words,  in 
the  fact  itself  that  one  is  the  Son  and  the  others  are  angels. 
Moreover,  the  Old  Testament  language  that  follows  does  not 
obviously  prove  this,  unless  it  be  ver.  6,  and  that  is  not  certainly 
genuine  Old  Testament  scripture,  but  most  likely  the  contrary. 
Nor  is  the  language  we  are  to  consider  an  appeal  to  Old  Testa- 
ment scripture  to  prove  that  God  does  call  Christ  a  Son.  For, 
it  must  be  said  again,  much  of  the  following  language,  interpreted 
according  to  the  original  context,  furnishes  no  such  proof.  Fur- 
thermore, the  thing  to  be  proved,  according  to  the  statement  of 
ver.  4,  would  be,  not  that  God  calls  Christ  a  Son,  but  that  Christ 
has  inherited  that  name,  and  on  this  point  the  following  language, 
considered  as  scripture  proof,  has  no  bearing  whatever. 

Recalling  the  reflections  above,  under  ver.  3,  respecting  the 
doctrinal  status  of  the  readers  of  this  epistle,  we  see  that  Chris- 
tians who  embraced  and  confessed  the  doctrinal  items  of  verses 
2,  3,  needed  indeed  no  proof  that  God  called  Christ  His  Son,  or 
that  the  name  Son  of  God  was  intrinsically  more  excellent  than 
that  of  angels.  We  notice,  in  fact,  among  those  doctrinal  items 
two,  viz. :  that  Christ  is  "  the  effulgence  of  God's  glory,  and  the 


i.  5-13.]  BY  god's  address  and  action.  15 

impress  of  God's  substance,"  which,  as  the  history  of  Christian 
doctrine  shows,  required  establishing,  as  articles  of  faith,  nuich 
more  than  that  God  called  Christ  His  Son,  or  that  the  Son  is 
greater  than  the  angels.  Yet,  though  the  readers  of  this  epistle 
needed  no  proof  of  these  fundamental  doctrines,  they  may  have 
failed  to  represent  to  themselves  all  that  was  involved  in  them. 
Especially  they  may  have  failed  to  represent  to  themselves  how 
much  better  a  Son  must  be  as  an  agent  that  spoke  for  God  than 
all  the  agents  that  preceded  Him,  and,  consequently,  how  much 
better  must  be  the  things  that  He  revealed.  If  the  following 
verses  (5-13)  were  purely  the  Author's  own  language,  every  reader 
W'Ould,  without  difficulty,  understand  him  to  aim  at  producing  the 
impression  of  this.  He  would,  in  a  dramatic  way,  be  represent- 
ing the  intimate  and  confidential  relations  of  the  Son  with  God, 
and  God's  paternal  purpose  of  clothing  Him  with  honor  and 
royal  glory  in  the  world,  and  on  the  other  hand,  he  would 
represent  the  humble  and  distant  relations  of  the  angels  to  God, 
and  how  they  are  destined  themselves  to  render  homage  to  the 
Son.  He  would  do  it  impressively  by  introducing  God  Himself 
as  actor  and  speaker,  and  by  marking  the  difference  of  His 
manner  to  the  Son  and  to  the  angels.  And  the  thing  would  be 
admirably  done.  It  is  not  the  less  so  because  the  Author 
makes  the  representation  in  scripture  language.  This  is,  in 
fact,  precisely  what  we  might  suppose  a  skillful  writer  would 
do.  •  Any  other  language  would  be  unbecoming.  We  may 
add,  were  all  the  following  language  like  that  of  ver.  6,  which 
most  commentators  will  agree  is  not  genuine  scripture  at  all, 
few  would  ever  have  thought  of  regarding  our  vers.  5-13  in  any 
other  light  than  that  now  presented.' 

^  An  explanation  that  departs  so  widely,  as  the  above  view  docs,  from  all 
traditional  interj)retations  of  our  passage  will,  of  course,  be  challenged,  and 
must  offer  sometliing  more  in  its  defence  than  what  is  said  above.  Its  justifi- 
cation must  appear  in  its  reasonableness  wlien  fully  ap})lied.  Tiie  rejection 
of  the  traditional  view,  that  regards  the  language  of  vers.  5-1,3  as  an  appeal  to 
Old  Testament  scripture  to  prove  a  statement  of  ver.  4,  must  be  diflcrently 
justified.  It  is,  however,  justification  enough  that  the  view  in  question  is 
attended  with  many  insuperable  difficulties.  The  hard  and  honest  labors 
of  the  best  expositors  have  only  served  to  make  this  more  manifest;   and 


16  TOWARD   THE   SON   ON   THE   ONE    HAND.        [i.  5-13. 

With  this  view  of  the  passage,  its  explanation  becomes  simple. 
The  force  of  it  does  not  lie  in  the  authority  of  Old  Testament 
scripture,  but  in  the  reasonableness  of  what  the  language  itself 
represents,  according  to  the  doctrinal  status  of  the  readers.  We 
have,  then,  little  to  do  with  the  sense  and  particularly  the  appli- 
cation of  that  language  in  its  original  context.  Of  course,  much 
of  that  meaning  must  cling  to  the  expressions  as  used  here.    But 

few  passages  of  scripture  have  had  as  much  work  of  that  sort  expended  on 
them. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  more  obvious  and  striking  difficulties : 
Take  any  statement  that  may  be  formulated  from  the  language  of  ver.  4,  and 
much  of  the  scripture  quotations  of  vers.  5-13,  considered  as  proof,  is  prima 
facie,  partly  mal-apropox,  and  the  statement  a  non-seqnitur,  and  they  are 
partly  not  scripture  at  all.  It  is  only  by  labored  exegesis  of  the  quotations, 
aijd  of  their  context,  and  by  invention  of  special  canons  of  Old  Testament 
interpretation  to  suit  the  emergencies  of  the  case,  that  the  point  and  fitness 
of  the  Author's  appeal  to  scripture  can  be  made  to  appear.  As  might  be  sup- 
posed, there  is  great  falling  out  among  expositors  in  this  labor. 

In  ver.  5  the  quotations  are  from  Ps.  ii.  7  and  2  Sam.  vii.  14  (1  Chr.  xvii.  13). 
It  has  been  proved  that  ancient  Jewish  Rabbis  regarded  Ps.  ii.  as  Messianic, 
and  that  later  Jewish  authorities  only  took  opposite  ground  on  account  of  the 
advantage  the  Messianic  view  gave  Christians  over  them.  But  it  does  not 
appear  that  Jews  ever  understood  that  my  son  in  these  passages  could  refer 
only  to  the  Messiah.  It  is  obvious,  in  fact,  that  the  language  in  2  Sam.  vii.  14 
applies  primarily  to  Solomon.  Moreover,  it  is  well  known  that  angels,  and 
even  men  are  not  unfrequently  in  the  Old  Testament  called  sons  of  God 
(comp.,  as  to  angels,  Ps.  xxix.  1 ;  Ixxxix.  7).  Hence  the  canon  of  interpre- 
tation is  devised :  "  That  nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament  is  any  single  man  or 
angel  called  '  Son  of  God,'  or  *  the  Son  of  God,'  or  simply  '  the  Son.'  It  is 
therefore  true  that  this  name  13  or  vl6q  does  appertain  to  the  exalted  Jesus,  as 
a  personal  name,  in  a  way  that  it  does  not  to  any  other  being  from  among 
angels  or  men"  (Del).  But  this  canon  would  never  have  been  thought  of 
except  for  the  exigencies  of  the  present  scripture  regarded  in  the  light  we  are 
considering.  And  it  is  right  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  God  does  call  Solomon 
His  son.  Certainly  He  does  so  to  the  apprehension  of  unsophisticated  readers 
of  2  Sam.  vii.  14.  It  seems  that,  were  this  a  mistaken  apprehension,  our 
Author  would  be  called  on  to  show  by  what  canon  "  My  son  "  was  to  be  under- 
stood of  Christ.  But  so  far  is  the  Author  from  having  such  a  notion,  that  he 
himself,  in  ver.  6,  calls  Christ  the  First-bom,  which  implies  other  sons,  and  at 
ii.  10  he  calls  the  redeemed:  "sons,"  {noTOicyvq  vloi%)  i.  e.,  sons  of  God.  Each  is 
therefore  a  son,  and  God  may  say  to  each  :  "  My  son."  How  could  the  Author 
so  write  just  after  such  a  passage  as  our  vers.  5-13,  if  the  aim  of  that  passage 
were  to  prove  that  only  Christ  has  that  more  excellent  name.     If  "  no  scrip- 


i.  5-13.]      TOWARD  ANGELS  ON  THE  OTHER.  17 

it  must  be  a  plain  meaning,  lying  on  the  surface  and  familiar  to 
the  readers.  This,  however,  is  nothing  more  than  what  is  true 
of  all  language.  That  some  of  the  language  is  confessedly  Mes- 
sianic need  not  mislead  us  to  suppose  that  all  is  so,  or  even  that 
the  Author  so  regarded  all  of  it.  If  he  used  scripture  language 
at  all  in  the  way  represented  above,  he  would  more  likely  than 
not  weave  in  some  that  was  familiarly  known  to  be  IVIcssianic. 


ture  is  of  private  interpretation,"  much  more  is  it  unallowable  to  warp  all 
scripture  to  suit  the  interpretation  of  a  unique  passage. 

In  ver.  6  the  language  quoted  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  scripture  at  all. 
The  words  are  found  only  in  the  LXX.,  at  Deut.  xxxii.  43.  The  only  other 
passage  tliat  might  be  claimed  as  the  possible  source  of  the  quotation  is 
Ps.  xcvii.  7,  which  reads:  "Worship  Him  all  ye  gods"  (Elohim),  where  the 
LXX.  have  " angels"  instead  of  "  gods."  But  no  one  would  tliink  of  the  latter 
but  for  the  textual  difficulty  of  the  former  passage.  Besides,  in  both  passages, 
it  is  Jehovah  that  is  to  be  worshiped.  To  meet  this  difficulty  another  canon 
is  devised :  "  The  writer  proceeds  on  the  general  principle,  that  whenever 
the  Old  Testament  speaks  of  a  final  and  decisive  advent  and  manifestation  of 
Jehovah  in  the  power  and  glory  of  the  final  judgment  and  salvation ;  when- 
ever it  speaks  of  a  revelation  of  Jehovah  which  shall  be  tlie  antitype  and 
fulfillment  of  that  typical  one  in  the  Mosaic  time,  of  a  self-presentation  of 
Jehovah  as  manifested  King  over  His  own  kingdom,  there  Jehovah  is  equiva- 
lent to  Jesus  Christ,  for  Christ  is  Jehovah  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  etc.  (Del.) 
Here  again  a  canon  is  invented  for  the  special  case,  and  a  very  intricate  one. 
"What  havoc  we  would  make  with  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  by 
the  application  of  such  a  canon!  And  why  may  not  we  use  it  as  well  as  the 
Author  of  this  epistle?  With  von  Hofmann  {Comm.  on  ver.  6)  we  may 
exclaim:  "If  Jehovah  is  really  always  Christ,  what  remains  of  God  tlie 
Father?"  This  view  of  the  Author's  fashion  of  reading  his  Old  Testament, 
though  reverent,  cannot  be  regarded  as  practically  better  tlinn  Bleek's  dishon- 
oring explanation  of  this  and  other  scriptural  quotations,  who  ascribes  the 
discrepancies  to  the  Author's  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  acquaintance  with  only  the  Greek  version  of  the  LXX.,  which,  e.  g., 
at  ver.  10,  led  him  to  suppose  that  Christ  is  meant  wherever  he  read  Kvpio^  — 
"Lord,"  in  the  LXX.,  because  Christ  was  commonly  so  called  in  the  Author's 
day.  See  the  same  view  reiterated  by  Toy  in  his  Quotadom  in  the  New 
Testament,  1884. 

In  vers.  8,  9,  the  words  quoted  from  Ps.  xlv.  6,  7,  are  not  the  words  of  God 
to  another,  but  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  addressed  to  the  object  of  his  worship, 
whom  he  entitles  Elohim  =  God.  Moreover,  the  words  are  one  undivided 
passage,  whereas,  in  our  vers.  8,  9,  they  appear  as  two  quotations  conjoined  by 
and,  for  which  a  special  reason  is  again  thought  out,  which  we  may  omit  to 
notice.     But  for  the  first  difficulty,  viz.,  that  the  Psalmist  addresses  God,  and 


18  THE  author's  own  THOUGHTS       [i.  5-13. 

It  may  help  to  familiarize  our  minds  with  the  method  used  by 
our  Author  in  this  dramatic  passage,  if  we  compare  similar 
examples  of  representing  dramatically  such  personal  relations  as 
are  here  illustrated.  Such  examples  appear  in  the  account  of 
healing  the  centurion's  servant,  Matt.  viii.  8  sqq.,  Luke  vii.  8 
sqq.  (note  the  "  I  say  "  of  the  centurion  and  the  he  saith  of  our 
vers.  6,  7).     Compare  also  the  parable  of  the  Servant  (Luke  xvii. 


not  God  is  the  speaker,  we  have  imputed  to  our  Author  still  another  canon  of 
interpretation  :  "That  he  regards  the  whole  contents  of  scripture  as  being  the 
word  and  utterance  of  God  Himself"  (Del.),  and  this  may  apply  to  all  the 
instances  of  he  saith  in  our  passage  vers.  5-13.  This  canon  has  a  broader 
application  to  our  whole  epistle,  and  not  only  to  the  special  case,  and  differs 
thus  from  the  preceding  canons.  But  it  is  in  the  face  of  the  Old  Testament 
language,  quoted  ii.  6,  12 ;  iii.  7  ;  iv.  7.  And,  moreover,  when  Delitzsch  comes 
to  explain  ii.  12,  we  find  him  resort  to  similar  invention  to  explain  hoAV  what 
was  said  by  Isaiah  of  his  own  children  may  be  understood  as  the  Messiah 
speaking. 

In  vers.  10-12,  the  words  as  found  in  Ps.  cii.  25-27  cannot,  without  violence, 
be  construed  as  having  been  said  to  Christ,  or  with  reference  to  Him.  They 
are  the  words  of  an  afflicted  soul  complaining  and  appealing  to  his  God.  But 
to  serve  the  present  case,  we  are  called  on  to  apply  again  the  canon  just  given, 
and  the  Psalm  must  be  made  Messianic  by  understanding  that :  "  The  advent 
(napovaia)  of  Jehovah,  for  which  the  Psalmist  is  praying,  as  one  who  carried 
in  his  heart  the  burden  of  the  afflictions  of  Jerusalem  and  his  exiled  people, 
is  an  '  advent '  already  vouchsafed  in  the  first  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
though  its  glorious  completion  is  still  waited  for."  (Del.)  According  to 
that,  what  Psalm  may  not  be  Messianic  ? 

Such  are  some  of  the  glaring  and  insuperable  difficulties  that  attend  the 
common  view,  that  in  our  vers.  5-13  our  Author  adduces  Old  Testament  scrip- 
ture as  authority  for  some  statement  of  ver.  4.  If  we  were  to  go  into  labored 
exposition  of  the  passages  in  question,  in  the  way  that  Delitzsch,  and  von 
Hofmann  do,  who  may  be  taken  as  the  best  examples  of  thorough  work  of  the 
sort,  we  would  be  confronted  with  many  more  difficulties,  and  quite  as  great. 
And  the  view  in  question  involves  the  necessity  of  such  exegesis,  with  all  its 
hardships,  especially  this  hardship,  that  the  results  will  certainly  be  as  numer- 
ously different  as  the  expositors.  Moreover  (and  this  alone  seems  decisive),  it 
is  manifest,  that,  did  the  Author  use  the  scripture  in  question  with  the  intent 
that  this  view  imputes  to  him,  he  must  have  been  as  obscure  to  his  first  readers 
as  to  ourselves,  and  could  only  have  been  explained  to  them  by  a  similar 
exegesis. 

We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  error  is  in  the  idew-point  itself,  viz.,  in 
the  assumption  that  the  Author  appeals  to  the  Old  Testament  scripture  as 
proof.     It  is  better,  with  von  Hofmann  {Schriftbeweiss,  I.  p.  150,  and  Comm. 


i.  5-13.]         CLOTHED   IN   SCRIPTURE   LANGUAGE.  19 

7-9) ;  and  especially  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  (Luke  xv. 
17  sqq.) 

In  illustration,  then,  of  the  greater  excellence  of  Christ  as 
betokened  by  that  inherited  name  Son,  the  Author  appeals  first 
to  the  obvious  fact,  not  that  angels  are  never  called  sons  of  God, 
which  is  not  a  fact,'  but  that  angels  are  nowhere  addressed  in 
that  affectionate  way  that  a  father  uses  toward  a  son,  and  which 
is  proper  where  that  relation  actually  exists.  This  the  Author 
expresses  in  a  way  that  assumes  that  the  fact  is  self-evident,  viz., 
he  puts  it  interrogatively,  in  a  way  that  anticipates  but  one  reply .^ 

Ver.  5.  For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at  any  time :  Thou 
art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  ?    And  again :  I  will  be 

071  Hebrews,  p.  70,)  to  take  another  view.  In  his  Schrifth.,  he  says:  "For 
us,  all  the  Apostolic  statements  concerning  Christ's  being  before  the  world 
and  above  the  world,  have  their  ground  in  Christ's  statements  concerning 
Himself,  that  He  proceeded  from  God  and  came  into  the  world,  and  again  left 
the  world  and  went  to  God.  Herewith  is  explained  the  use  that  we  see  made 
of  that  passage  in  the  Tsalms  [Ps.  cii.  25-27,  in  our  ver.  10  sqq.],  which  is 
not  intended  by  the  Author  as  proof  of  what  he  said  of  Jesus,  but,  like  all  the 
previously  quoted  passages,  only  serves  the  purpose  of  saying  in  scripture 
language  what  is  true  of  Christ  according  to  the  Author's  belief,  and  the  belief 
he  assumes  in  his  readers." 

The  position  we  must  adopt  more  absolutely  than  von  Hofmann  does.  For 
he  adds :  "  If  Christ  was  before  the  world  with  God,  then  what  is  said  of  God 
as  being  before  the  world  and  above  the  world  applies  to  Him."  This,  then, 
leads  him  to  seek  in  the  scripture  passages  quoted,  and  as  understood  in  their 
original  context,  what  is  the  truth  that  is  applicable  to  Christ ;  which  necessi- 
tates as  much  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament  scripture  as  the  common  view, 
with  just  the  same  sort  of  attending  difficulties,  if  not  as  many.  However 
skillfully  he  does  his  work,  it  certainly  produces  the  conviction  that  our  Author 
used  scripture  in  a  way  quite  unfamiliar  to  his  readers,  and  that  it  was  impos- 
sible for  them  to  understand  him. 

We  may  add  the  reflection,  that  our  verses  4-13  and  ii.  .5  sqq.,  have  a  most 
important  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
that  the  view-point  we  have  been  considering,  with  tlie  principles  of  Old 
Testament  interpretation  it  has  originated,  has  done  more  to  introduce  confu- 
sion into  that  sulject  than  any  other  thing.  On  other  examples  of  similar  use 
of  scripture  language,  by  the  Apostle,  viz.,  ii.  12,  13;  x.  5,  38,  see  in  loc. 

^  Comp.  Ps.  xxix.  1 ;  Ixxxix.  6,  where  the  words  rendered  "ye  mighty," 
(marg. :  "sons  of  the  mighty"),  are  correctly  rendered  by  the  LXX.  "sons  of 
God,"  and  by  these  are  meant  angels. 

*  Comp.  the  exclamation  of  Peter  (John  vi.  28),  "  To  whom  shall  we  go,"  etc. 


20  LET   ANGELS   WORSHIP    HIM  [i.  5-13. 

to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son  ?  The  language  used 
here  is  from  Ps.  ii.  7  aud  2  Sam.  vii.  14  (1  Chr.  xxii.  13),  and 
was  familiarly  understood  to  be  Messianic.  It  is  this  fact  that 
warrants  the  Author  in  using  it  in  the  self-evidential  way  he 
does.  He  repeats  this  manner  of  expression  at  ver.  13,  in 
employing  other  language  that  was  still  more  familiarly  regarded 
as  Messianic.  The  force  of  the  appeal  in  our  ver.  5,  lies  in  the 
truth  that  God  does  so  address  the  Messiah.  With  this  the 
Apostle  contrasts  the  representation  of  God's  manner  of  address- 
ing the  angels : 

Ver.  6.  "But,  when  he  shall  have  again  brought  in  the  first- 
born into  the  [inhabited]  world,  he  says:  and  let  aU  the  angels  of 
God  worship  him.  The  language  of  ver.  6,  a:  But  when  .  .  . 
world  is  an  indirect  statement  in  the  Author's  own  words.  The 
language  of  ver  6,  6 :  And  let  .  .  .  worship  him  is  from  Deut. 
xxxii.  43,  as  the  words  are  found  in  the  LXX.,  but  not  in  the 
Hebrew  text.  There  is  nothing  in  the  original  context  of  Moses' 
sons'  that  refers  to  the  occasion  to  which  the  Author  refers  in 
ver.  6,  a:  nor  does  the  exhortation  there  "to  worship"  propose 
any  other  object  than  God  Himself.  The  occasion  to  which  our 
Author  refers  is  the  second  coming  of  Christ.^  And  this  must 
explain  why  and  in  what  sense  he  writes  the  first-born  instead  of 
"  the  Son."  He  that  came  into  the  world  as  the  Son,  will  return 
to  it  as  the  First-born,  because  in  the  meanwhile  there  will  have 
been  born  after  Him  "  many  sons,"^  of  which  ii.  10-13  treats 
more  fully.  The  world  to  which  the  Son  will  be  introduced  is 
here  called  the  inhabited  world  (oixuu/iiwY^)^^  and  is  mentioned 
again  ii.  5,  as  "  the  world  to  come,"  and  must  mean  what  is 
amplified  there,  viz.,  a  condition  of  the  earth  and  its  inhabitants 
wherein  all  things  are  to  be  subjected  to  Christ  who  has  been 
crowned  with  honor  aud  glory  (ii.  7-9).  On  this  occasion,  as 
the  Apostle  represents,  God  says  :  and  let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  him.  He  includes  the  and  of  the  original  passage  in  the 
LXX.,  because  he  would  signify  that,  in  addition  to  the  worship 
that  awaits  the  returning  First-born  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants 

^  Del.,  Alford,  von  Hof.,  etc.        ^  So  lun.  and  von  Hof.       ^  Contrast  x.  5. 


i.  5-13.]  WHEX   HE   COMES  AGAIN.  21 

of  the  earth,  the  angels  also  shall  be  called  on  to  worship  Ilini.' 
It  seems  inexplicable,  at  first,  why  the  Author  should  brhig  in 
this  reference  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ  so  abruptly.     But 
we  see  that  his  main  thought  is  to  express  the  inferiority  of  the 
angels  to  the  Son,  and  nothing  could  do  so  better  thau  to  repre- 
sent them  as  worshipping  Him.    There  is  no  scriptural  intimation 
of  their  doing  so  except  that  which  the  Apostle  elaborates  at  ii. 
5-9.     The  fulfillment  is  to  be  when  He  comes  again.     The  point 
with  the  Author  is  to  state,  in  contrast  with  ver.  5  (/.  c.  in  con- 
trast with  what  God  does  not  say  to  angels),  what  He  does  say  of 
them,  viz.,  let  them  all  worship  the  First-born  ;  and  this  necessi- 
tates his  saying  when.     Thus  the  clause :  when  he   shall  have 
again  brought.  .  .  world,  is  parenthetical.     The  truth  that  the 
angels  shall  be  subject  to  the  Son  does  not  rest  on  the  scriptural 
language  that  is  quoted,  which,   as  a  proof-text,  has  no  such 
application.     The  readers  of  this  epistle  required  no  proof  that 
angels  would  worship  the  returning  First-born.     That  was  part 
of  the  accepted  belief.^     It  is,  however,  the  Apostle's  aim  to  rep- 
resent not  only  the  inferiority  of  the  angels  to  Christ,  but  also 
God's  manner  of  treating  them  as  inferior     Thus  he   represents 
God  as  saying  to  them,  or  rather  of  them  (which  is  a  still  more 
distant  manner) :    and  let  aU  the  angels  of  God  worship  him. 
The  Apostle  has  no  need  of  scripture  proof  that  God  says  this. 
If  the  angels  are  to  worship  Christ,  it  will  be  because  God  says : 
let  them  worship  Him.     But  wishing  to  represent  this  scriptural 
thought  iu  a  certain  manner,  he  uses  in  a  free  way  scriptural 
language  that  suits  his  purpose.     We  shall  do  better  justice  to 
the  Apostle's  manner  of  using  scripture  language  when  we  shall 
have  noticed  how  (e.g.,  at  ii.  6  sqq. ;  iii.  7  sqq.)  he  makes  it  plain 
enough  when  he  means  to  appeal  to  Old  Testament  scripture  as 
authority,  and  with  what  exactness  he  uses  it  then,  and  how 
independently  of  the  version  of  the  LXX. 

We  may  add  here  the  reflection  that,  with  the  view  we  have 
taken,  the  Apostle's  use,  in  the  present  instance,  of  language  that 
criticism  discovers  to  be  doubtful,  if  not  spurious,  involves  no 

1  So  von  Hof.  *  Comp.  2  Thess.  i.  7  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  22. 


22  ANGELS,  WINDS   AND    FIEE.  [i.  5-13. 

important  question  touching  what  is  genuine  scripture.  He 
simply  uses  scriptural  language  in  the  form  familiar  to  his  readers 
to  express  his  own  thought ;  just  as  many  intelligent  Christians 
now  will  continue  to  use  the  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer 
(Matt.  vi.  13),  though  fully  aware  that  it  is  not  genuine. 

Extending  his  illustration,  the  Apostle  contrasts  God's  man- 
ner towards  angels  and  towards  Christ  in  two  more  representa- 
tions ;  towards  angels  (ver.  7)  as  ministers  that  God  uses  in 
administering  the  affairs  of  the  material  world,  and  who  are  such 
as  He  makes  them  for  the  use  required ;  towards  the  Son  (vers. 
8-12)  as  the  occupant  of  a  throne  that  is  God's  throne,  adminis- 
tering a  moral  world  where  He  is  to  reign  everlastingly  with  a 
fulness  of  joy  that  is  the  reward  of  His  righteous  sway. 

Ver.  7.  And  of  the  angels,  indeed,  he  saith :  Who  maketh  his 
angels  winds,  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire  ;  8.  but  of  the  Son 
[he  saitli] :  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  forever  and  ever,  and :  The  sceptre 
of  righteousness  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom.  9.  Thou  lovedst 
righteousness  and  hatedst  iniquity,  therefore,  0  God,  thy  God 
anointed  thee  with  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows,  lo.  And : 
thou  in  the  beginning.  Lord,  didst  found  the  earth,  and  works  of 
thy  hands  are  the  heavens ;  n.  they  shall  perish,  but  thou  con- 
tinuest;  and  as  a  garment  they  all  shall  wax  old,  12.  and  as  a 
mantle  thou  wilt  change^  them,  and  Hhey  shall  be  changed,  but 
thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail. 

The  language  used  here  is  culled  out  of  several  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament.  That  of  ver.  7  from  Ps.  civ.  4.  That  of 
ver.  8  from  Ps.  xlv.  6,  7.  That  of  ver.  10-12  from  Ps.  cii. 
25-27.  The  freedom  of  this  selection ;  the  fact  that  it  is  all 
from  the  Psalms,  i.  e.,  the  most  familiar  scripture  ;  the  absence 
of  express  reference  to  it  as  authority,  such  as  we  find  ii.  6  ;  iii. 
7  ;  the  liberty  the  Author  takes  with  the  language  (e.  g.,  ascrib- 
ins:  to  God  what  is  the  lang-uao-e  of  the  Psalmist,  and  in  ver.  8 
making  two  expressions  of  one  by  repeating  the  and  of  ver.  7) ; 
and  his  using  language  of  Ps.  cii.,  that  is  not  Messianic,  precisely 
as  he  does  the  clearly  Messianic  language  of  Ps.  xlv. ;  all  these 
circumstances  constrain  us  to  understand  that  the  Author  clothes 

'  Or  fold  np,  f  A/fe<?  W.  and  H. 

'  W.  and  H.,  add  wf  l/idTiov=as  a  garment. 


i.  5-13.]        THE  SON   SOVEREIGN   AND   IMMUTABLE.  23 

his  own  thought  in  scripture  language.  It  is  his  aim  again,  both 
to  point  to  the  actual  diiFerence  between  the  Son  and  the  angels, 
and  to  express  it  (dramatically)  so  as  to  represent  a  difference  of 
God's  manner  towards  each. 

In  reference  to  the  angels  (ver.  7),  he  represents  God  speaking 
of  them,  distantly,  in  the  familiar  words  of  the  Psalm ;  that 
they  are  sometimes  winds,  sometimes  a  flaming  fire,  sometimes 
messengers  (which  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  angels),  sometimes 
ministers.  By  this  is  not  meant  that  angels  are  only  material, 
impersonal  things,  or  that  such  things  as  winds  and  fire  are 
angels,  as  well  as  that  personal  spirits  are  such.  AVe  must  sup- 
pose that  the  Apostle  reflects  here  what  the  Jews  believed  :  "  that 
God  gives  His  angels,  when  employing  them  to  carry  out  His 
purposes  in  the  sensible  universe,  elemental  bodies^  as  it  were,  of 
wind  and  fire,  as  '  media '  of  manifestation."  ^  By  this  he  makes 
prominent  the  characteristics  of  inferiority  and  mutability  in  the 
angels. 

The  Apostle  follows  this  with  the  representation  of  the 
sovereignty  and  immutable  greatness  of  the  Son  (vers.  8-12),  and 
of  how  God  addresses  Him  as  His  peer.  The  period  to  which 
such  a  representation  refers  must  be  the  same  as  stated  ver.  6, 
viz.,  Christ's  second  coming.  If  the  doctrinal  statements  of  vers. 
2,  3  were  the  accepted  belief  of  his  readers,  the  representation 
of  our  vers.  8-12,  are  the  logical  consequences  of  them,  that  need 
only  the  expression  to  command  assent.  Any  other  than  scrip- 
ture language  to  express  them  would  be  unworthy  the  theme. 
The  Apostle  naturally  uses  the  scripture  language  most  familiar 
to  his  readers,  viz.,  the  version  of  the  LXX.  He  writes  so  well 
that  comment  is  needless.  It  is  obvious,  moreover,  that  such 
quoted  language  does  not  demand,  or  even  permit,  that  we  should 
weigh  each  expression  with  the  exactness  we  must  observe  in 
considering  the  Author's  own  language.  In  expressing  one's  self 
in  quoted  language,  one  "  takes  it  in  the  block." 

But  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  in  ver.  8,  the  Apostle  does  not 
hesitate  to  write  unequivocally  0  God,  as  addressed  to  the  Son, 

^  Del.  Comp.,  Liin.,  and  references  in  both  to  Schoetgen  and  Wetstein. 


24  THE  SON   DIVINE.  [i.  5-13. 

in  the  vocative.  And,  as  he  weaves  the  quoted  language 
together,  this  so  involves  ver.  9  that  the  same  constTuctiou  must 
be  retained  there,  and  we  must  read :  0  God,  thy  God.  The 
application  in  vers.  10-12  of  language  originally  addressed  to  God 
is  in  the  same  spirit.  All  of  vers.  8-12,  therefore,  are  most 
unequivocal  Apostolic  testimony  to  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
And  this  is  additional  reason  for  taking  the  doctrinal  statements 
of  vers.  2, 3,  as  we  have  done,  in  the  most  absolute  sense.  More- 
over, as  Apostolic  testimony  to  this  doctrine,  it  is  far  more  exact 
and  irrefragable  in  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  when 
we  see  that  the  thought,  though  clothed  in  scripture  language,  is 
really  that  of  the  Apostle  himself.  For  if  we  receive  it  as  Old 
Testament  language,  intended  to  adduce  Old  Testament  thought, 
in  proof  of  some  statement  of  ver.  4,  we  find  everything  depends 
on  whether  the  language  in  the  original  context  really  has  the 
meaning  or  application  that  the  Apostle  thinks  it  has.  Then 
everything  that  may  be  justly  urged  against  the  words  (e.  g., 
Ps.  cii.  25-27)  having  such  an  application  tells  against  the  pre- 
sent testimony  to  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Just  in  proportion  as  one  feels  that  the  Author  mistakes  that 
application,  he  will  feel  that  the  Author  may  be  charged  with 
having  mistaken  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ. 

The  Apostle  adds  one  more  illustration.  Using  language 
of  Ps.  ex.  1,  which  was  familiarly  known  to  be  Messianic,  in- 
deed more  femiliarly  known  in  this  way  than  any  other  passage 
of  scripture,  he  puts  the  thought  interrogatively,  in  that  self- 
evidential  way  noticed  in  ver.  5. 

Ver.  13.  But  of  which  of  the  angels  hath  he  said  at  any  time : 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool 
of  thy  feet? 

The  question  anticipates  only  one  answer,  viz.  a  negative ;  and 
this  negative  demands  attention  to  the  contrary  affirmative,  that 
God  did  say  this  to  the  Son.  He  says  it  now.  For  now  Christ 
is  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high  (ver.  3). 

The  Apostle  marks  a  diiference  in  this  appeal,  compared  with 
those  that  have  preceded,  not  only  by  the  interrogative  affirma- 
tion, but  also  by  the  use  of  the  perfect  tense :  He  hath  said, 


i.  14.]  A>-GELS   MINISTEES   OF   THE   LAW.  25 

which  denotes,  not  only  that  the  thing  was  said,  but  also  that  its 
effect  continues.  "  No  Psalm  is  so  often  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament  as  this  ex.;  being  quoted  ten  times:  Matt.  xxii. 
41-46 ;  Mark  xii.  35-37 ;  Luke  xx.  41-44  ;  Acts  ii.  34 ;  1 
Cor.  XV.  25 ;  Heb.  i.  13 ;  x.  13  (all  quotations  of  Ps.  ex.  1) ; 
and  further,  Heb.  v.  6 ;  vii.  17,  21  (quotations  from  Ps.  ex.  4). 
Moreover,  all  those  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  speak 
of  our  Lord's  session  at  the  right  hand  of  God  have  an  intimate 
relation  to  this  Psalm,  which  first  gives  this,  its  scriptural  name, 
to  that  great  divine  fact  of  the  new  dispensation."  ^ 

To  this  extended  illustration  of  the  "  more  excellent  name  " 
(ver.  4),  the  Apostle  adds  the  statement  of  what  is  the  place  of 
angels.  This  he  does  in  that  interrogative  and  self-evidential 
way  that  he  has  twice  used  already  (vers.  5,  13),  and  that  we 
begin  to  notice  is  a  marked  trait  of  his  style  of  composition. 

Ver.  14.  Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits  sent  forth  for  a 
service  on  account  of  them  that  should  inherit  salvation  ? 

In  affirming  what  he  does  here  of  angels  with  such  emphasis 
on :  aU,  it  is  obvious  that  other  spheres  of  activity  for  them  are 
not  excluded  ;  for  the  statement  of  ver.  7  precludes  that  notion, 
as  it  also  requires  us  to  think  that  angels  do  other  things  also 
than  what  is  here  described.  Thus  the  Apostle  can  neither  mean, 
that  all  angels  are  at  the  same  time  sent  forth,  or  attending  as 
ready  to  be  sent  forth,  for  the  service  mentioned  here,  nor  that 
this  sort  of  service  is  exclusively  the  object  of  their  ministr>\ 
Moreover,  it  is  improbable  that  the  representation  of  our  ver.  14 
is  intended  as  an  additional  illustration  of  the  inferiority  of 
angels  to  the  Son.  Such,  indeed,  is  the  common  interpretation. 
But  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  what  is  stated  is  in  reality 
no  proof  of  their  inferiority,  at  least  in  the  sense  commonly  sup- 
posed. For  if  we  understand  our  ver.  14  to  represent  that  the 
vocation  of  angels  is  to  minister  to  those  whom  Christ  saves,  that 
Ls  no  more  than  Christ  Himself  did  when  on  earth,  and  than  He 
continues  to  do  when  ascended  to  heaven."  He  indeed  chiefly 
excels  the  angels  in  respect  to  us  by  ministering  to  the  heirs  of 
salvation  more  effectually.     This  ministry,  then,  can  afford  no 

1  j)gi  '  Comp.  viii.  2. 


26  NOT  OF  SALVATION  [i.  14. 

ground  of  contrast  between  Christ  and  angels,  but  only  a  com- 
parison of  the  degree  of  it.  But  even  were  the  present  statement 
to  point  to  a  service  of  angels  that  some  way  marked  their  humbler 
degree,  we  have  already  noticed  that  the  text  before  us  precludes 
our  thinking  that  is  all  the  service  they  perform.  So  that,  humble 
as  this  service  might  be  compared  with  what  is  represented  of  the 
Son,  vers.  10-13,  they  have  other  services  that  are  truly  exalted. 
In  short,  we  suppose  the  point  of  ver.  14  has  been  generally 
misapprehended.  The  Apostle's  present  representation  relates 
to  angels  as  they  are  noticed  in  the  present  comparison,  viz.,  as 
agents  of  revelation  speaking  for  God.  Comparison  is  intended  ; 
but  as  it  has  been  expressed  at  ver.  4.  The  Son  is  better  for  us 
as  agent  of  revelation  than  the  angels.  How  this  is  so  has  been 
expressed  (vers.  5-13),  by  showing  that  the  Son  is  the  favorite, 
the  confidant,  the  peer  of  God  ;  all  of  which  the  angels  are  not 
Now  it  is  expressed  by  affirming  what  the  angels  are,  that  is,  what 
they  are  as  agents  of  revelation.  The  Apostle  says,  they  are  all  of 
them  such  as  he  proceeds  to  describe,  meaning  that  in  this  char- 
acter they  have  one  function,  and,  because  angels  are  many  and 
mighty,  their  functions  will  be  unerringly  and  certainly  discharged. 
That  the  angels  are  ministering  spirits  has  been  expressed 
already  ver.  7,  where  it  has  been  stated  (with  a  play  on  the  word 
Tzveofia,  using  it  literally)  that  God  makes  them  winds  and  a  flam- 
ing fire,  and  that  as  such  they  are  His  ministers.  All  these 
notions  are  to  be  brought  forward  and  combined  with  the  present 
statement.  Thus,  in  our  ver.  14,  when  the  angels  are  called  min- 
istering spirits,  it  is  meant  that  they  minister  to  God.  Therefore, 
we  are  not  to  suppose  the  Apostle  expresses  here  that  they  min- 
ister to  the  Son,  as  ver.  6,  it  is  represented  how  they  are  to 
worship  the  Son.  The  latter  event  is  referred  to  the  future ; 
what  is  represented  here  is  present  {Blah — ar.oareXXdixeva  ;  "  are  " — 
"sent").  Nor  may  we  suppose  that  the  Apostle  expresses  that 
the  angels  minister  to  those  to  be  saved,  in  a  benignant  sense. 
The  expression  of  that  notion  requires  a  substantive  of  the  person 
in  the  dative  after  the  phrase  eh  dtaxoviav,  "  for  a  service."  ^ 
(Comp.  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.) 
^  Comp.  Bleek. 


i.  14.]        ox   ACCOUNT  OF  THE   HEIRS  OF  SALVATION.  27 

As  ministering  spirits  serving  God,  and  as  a  flame  of  fire/  the 
angels  are  sent  forth,  by  which  is  meant  what  they  are  at  present 
as  charged  with  the  execution  of  that  word  that  they  spoke  as 
God's  agents  of  revelation  (ii.  2).  These  thoughts  are  resumed  from 
ver.  7.  What  marks  the  progress  of  thought  is  the  additional 
statement :  on  account  of  them  that  should  afterwards  inherit  sal- 
vation. These  words  define  the  intent  of  the  angelic  ministry 
here  referred  to.  On  account  of  (ojri,  with  accusative)  expresses 
nothing  as  to  w^liat  the  service  is,  but  only  with  reference  to 
whom  the  service  is  done  for  God.  Thus  it  is  not  expressed  that 
they  minister  directly  in  the  matter  of  salvation  at  all.  What 
relation  their  service  may  have  to  salvation  can  only  be  inferred, 
as  far  as  now  expressed,  from  the  revelation  of  which  they  are 
known  to  be  the  agents.  This  would  lead  us  to  think  of  the 
relation  of  the  law  of  Moses  to  the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ.^ 
But  in  the  context  (ii.  2)  we  actually  find  expressed  this  antithesis 
between  their  ministry  and  salvation ;  salvation  is  escape  from 
the  word  spoken  by  angels.  Thus  the  nearest  interpretation  of 
our  ver.  14  is,  that  it  intimates  the  same  antithesis  when  it 
reminds  the  readers,  that  angels  are  now  sent  forth  to  do  a  ser- 
vice for  God  on  account  of  those  that  are  to  inherit  salvation. 

In  Rom.  iii.  25  we  have  a  statement  that  is  kindred  to  our 
present  one,  both  in  construction  and  thought :  "  Whom  God 
set  forth  a  propitiation  ...  to  show  His  righteousness  on  account 
of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance 

of  God.         (ii?  evdst^iv  riy?  duacofftjvrj'^  aurou  Sid  ty^v  Tzdps/nv  x.  r.  A.). 

As  for  construction,  the  dcd  t.  r.dpsfjiv  has  the  same  relation  to  the 

e;'?  hdst^.  that    in    our  text   the  Std  rohg  iJ.iXh)VTa<i  X.  T.  X.  has  to  £^9 

diaxivAa'j.  As  for  kindred  thought,  Rom.  iii.  25  declares  what  the 
service  of  Christ  was  with  reference  to  those  that  by  transgres- 
sion had  actually  incurred  the  penalty  of  the  law.  Our  text 
declares,  mutatis  mutandis,  what  is  the  service  of  angels,  the 
ministers  of  the  broken  law,  with  reference  to  those  that  should 
afterward  be  saved.  One  representation  is  but  the  other  in- 
verted. 

With  the  notions  thus  identified  agrees  the  expression :  those 

»  Comp.  ix.  27  ;  xii.  29.  »  John  i.  17. 


28  AS  THE   LAW   BELATED   TO   FAITH.  [i.  M. 

that  should  or  those  ahout  {ixiXhr^ra<;)  to  inherit  salvation.  This 
represents  the  service  of  the  angels  as  antecedent  to  that  revela- 
tion that  promises  salvation.  In  short,  the  Apostle  intimates 
here  what  he  clearly  expresses  Gal.  iii.  19—24,  which  is  the  pas- 
sage most  parallel  to  our  context  in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of 
angels.  There  the  ministry  of  angels  is  represented  to  be  the 
communication  of  the  law  that  "  was  added  because  of  trans- 
gressions, till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the  promise  hath 
been  made ; "  and  that,  "  before  faith  came,  we  were  kept  in 
ward  under  the  law,  shut  up  unto  the  faith  which  should 
afterward  be  revealed  (rrjv  iiilXouffav  ruanv  aTur/.aXoff^yi^mi),  so  that 
the  law  hath  been  our  tutor  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we 
might  be  justified  by  faith."  What  the  Apostle  says,  in  Galatians, 
of  the  law,  he  here  intimates  of  the  angels  through  whom  the  law 
was  ordained.  What  he  says,  in  Galatians,  of  the  faith  that  should 
afterward  be  revealed,  he  says  here  of  those  that  were  afterward 
to  have  the  faith  and  so  inherit  salvation.  In  the  one  case  he 
speaks  abstractly  of  law  and  faith ;  in  the  other  he  speaks  con- 
cretely or  personally  of  angels  and  saints. 

This,  then,  is  what  angels  are  as  the  agents  of  revelation  that 
have  spoken  a  word  from  God.  They  are  ministering  spirits 
representing  the  justice  of  that  law  that  was  spoken  by  them. 
Their  service  has  respect  to  those  that  are  to  inherit  salvation,  but 
it  is  only  as  the  law  is  said  to  do  the  same.  The  direction  and 
effectiveness  of  that  service  find  immediate  expression  in  the 
closely  connected  words  that  follow  (ii.  1-3),  which  interpret  the 
sense  in  which  our  ver.  14  is  said,  and  confirm  the  view  now 
presented. 

As  with  the  present  verse  the  Apostle  concludes  the  con- 
trast between  the  Son  and  angels  as  agents  of  revelation  from 
God,  we  may  pause  for  some  reflections  on  what  appears.  The 
statement  of  our  ver.  14  might  have  been  made  in  closest  con- 
nection with  ver.  4.  Yet  how  much  the  thought  that  would 
thus  have  been  expressed  has  gained  by  the  representations  that 
have  intervened  !  The  angels  have  not  been  lowered  in  dignity. 
But  the  Son  appears  gloriously  transcending  them  all  as  the  inti- 
mate confidant  and  peer  of  God.     God  gives  him  a  righteous 


i.  14.]  THE   WEDGE   OF    ARGUMENT    ENTERED.  29 

kingdom  that  comprehends  eartli  and  heaven,  and  is  to  be  ever- 
lasting. In  token  of  this  he  sits  at  God's  riglit  liand  till  the 
kingdom  is  established  without  an  enemy  to  oppose  him.  All 
this  makes  him  better  as  an  agent  of  revelation  to  us  than  the 
angels,  and  the  measure  of  that  betterness  is  his  more  excellent 
name.  And  finally  it  appears,  that  this  greater  excellence  is  due 
to  a  distinction  or  difference  as  to  quality  in  that  service  he 
undertakes  as  revealer,  and  the  services  of  angels.  The  service 
of  angels  is  as  a  flame  of  fire  ;  his  is  salvation  from  that.  Thus, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  "greater  excellence"  (ver.  4)  expresses 
{piatpoprnTspov)  something  not  only  greater  in  degree  but  also  dif- 
ferent in  kind.  It  is  this  double  excellence  that  makes  the  Son 
so  much  better  than  the  angels  as  one  to  speak  to  us  from  God. 

Here,  then,  we  may  notice  already  the  sharp  edge  of  the  wedge 
entered  that  is  to  divide  between  the  old  and  the  new  dispensa- 
tions. By.  successive  blows  the  Apostle  is  about  to  drive  it  in 
further,  till  the  division  is  complete.  But  before  he  drives  it 
further,  he  pauses  to  give  an  admonition  appropriate  to  the  situ- 
ation as  already  presented. 

We  may  observe  at  this  point,  that  we  have  already  encountered 
in  our  epistle  one  of  the  many  representations  that  breathe  the 
distinctive  spirit  of  the  Apostle  Paul's  teaching.  It  has  been 
quite  the  fashion  of  late  to  emphasize  the  differences  between  our 
Author  and  the  recognized  epistles  of  Paul.  As  a  good  repre- 
sentative, we  may  quote  Farrar^  on  a  point  regarding  which  we 
are  now  in  a  position  to  form  an  opinion  of  our  own,  and  shall 
see  still  more  clearly  when  we  have  examined  the  next  following 
verses  (ii.  1-4) : 

"  To  St.  Paul,  Judaism  was  represented  by  a  law  which 
enforced,  by  one  universal  menace,  its  impossible  exactions  ;  it 
was  a  dispensation  of  wrath  which  revealed  to  man  that  he  was 
naturally  under  the  curse  of  God.  Christianity,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  represented  by  a  deliverance,  a  reconciliation,  a  free 
grace,  which  men  were  enforced  to  seek  as  a  refuge  from  a  doom 
which  their  troubled  conscience  declared  to  be  deserved.  This 
epistle  views  the  two  religious  under  an  aspect  entirely  different. 

^  Early  days,  etc.  chap.  xvi. 


30  Paul's  spieit,  or  paul  himself.  [ii.  1. 

It  sees  in  Judaism  not  so  much  a  law  as  a  system  of  worship, 
of  which  Christianity  was  the  antitype  and  fulfillment.  Both 
writers  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion,  but  they  do  so  by  differ- 
ent routes,  and  from  different  premises.  St.  Paul  represents 
Mosaism  as  a  cancelled  servitude  ;  this  writer  as  an  incomplete 
satisfaction."  This  representation,  which  runs  on  further  than 
we  care  to  quote,  in  ringing  antitheses,  is  as  little  justified  in 
general,  as  it  is  in  the  particular  that  falls  under  our  notice  in 
the  present  context.  In  speaking  of  the  ministry  of  angels,  we 
observe  that  our  Author  is  really  speaking  of  the  law.  At  x.  28, 
dealing  with  the  same  subject,  and  reiterating,  from  the  point  of 
view  there  attained,  the  same  admonition  that  we  must  next 
examine  (ii.  1,  2),  he  exchanges  the  expression  "  the  word  spoken 
by  angels  "  for  "  the  law  of  Moses."^  He  means  in  our  context  the 
same  thing  that  is  discoursed  on  in  Romans  and  Galatians  as  the 
law  of  Moses.  We  may  even  adopt  the  language  of  the  above 
quotation,  as  it  characterizes  Paul's  manner  of  viewing  the  law  and 
salvation,  as  the  preface  to  the  words  of  our  Author  that  we  are 
now  to  consider.  "  He  represents  the  ministry  of  angels  as  one 
universal  menace  enforcing  impossible  exactions ;  as  a  dis- 
pensation of  wrath  that  revealed  to  the  readers  that  they  were 
under  the  curse  of  God.  The  ministry  of  Christ,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  a  salvation,  a  deliverance^  which  the  heirs  of  salvation 
are  forced  to  seek  as  a  refuge  from  a  doom  which  their  troubled 
consciences  declare  to  be  deserved." 

We  are  now  to  see  why  the  Apostle  has  dwelt  so  fully  on  the 
superiority  of  the  Son  compared  with  the  prophets,  and  especially 
with  angels.     It  appears  in  the  application  he  proceeds  to  make. 

II.  1.  For  this  reason  we  must  more  abundantly  give  heed  to 
the  things  that  were  heard,  lest  haply  we  drift  away  [from  them.] 

The  immediate  reference  of:  for  this  reason,  is  to  what  has  been 
represented  i.  14.  This  is  evident  of  itself  as  soon  as  we  appre- 
hend the  point  of  what  is  stated  there,  and  detect,  as  we  have 
done,  its  magnitude  and  the  consequences  involved.  It  is 
because  all  this  has  been  missed  that  the  reference  of :  "  for  this 

^  Comp.  vii.  12,  19 ;  x.  1.  *  Comp.  ix.  12,  15,  on  Ivrpuaig  and  cnroXvTpuaig  = 
"  deliverance." 


ii.  1.]  KISS   THE  SON   LEST   HE   BE   ANGRY.  31 

reason  "  has  usually  been  extended  to  all  the  foregoing  context 
of  chap,  i.,  especially  from  ver.  4.  By  :  the  things  that  were 
heard,  is  meant  the  same  that  has  been  expressed  by :  "  God 
spake  unto  us  in  his  Son  "  (i.  2),  denoting,  however,  that  what 
was  spoken  has  also  been  heard.  The  following  ver.  3,  with  i. 
14,  shows  that  the  word  of  salvation  is  meant.  For  this  the 
Apostle  claims  more  abundant  heed,  and  that  as  a  necessity.'  He 
says  :  we  must ;  and  the  first  person  plural  means  himself  and 
readers  and  all  concerned ;  in  other  words,  the  Hebrews  that 
were  the  special  subjects  of  divine  revelation,  as  is  denoted  by  the 
same  first  person  plural,  i.  2.  By  :  more  abundantly,  is  denoted 
a  comparison.  But  it  is  not  more  earnest  heed  than  had  been 
given  to  previous  revelation  ;  ^  nor  more  than  might  have  been 
needed  had  the  present  revelation  come  by  an  agent  not  superior 
to  previous  agents.^  There  is  progress  in  the  thought  to  an 
additional  motive  for  hearing,  derived  from  what  has  been  repre- 
sented of  the  service  of  angels.  The  meaning  is  :  more  abund- 
ant heed  than  might  have  been  needful  if  the  angels  had  not  been 
charged  with  such  a  service. 

The  present  need  of  hearing  well  is  enforced,  in  the  first  place, 
by  the  consideration  :  last  haply  we  drift  away  from  the  things 
spoken.  The  advantage  to  be  had  from  what  was  spoken  might 
be  forfeited  by  "  drifting  by  "  and  missing  the  mark.  And  there 
was  danger  of  making  such  a  miss,  unless  one  gave  very  great 
heed,  and  of  failing  of  refuge  from  an  impending  storm  "  as  a 
ship  that  in  stress  of  weather  fails  to  make  its  haven."  * 

As  his  readers  seemed  little  sensible,  both  of  the  danger  of 
drifting  by,  and  of  the  dreadful  consequences,  the  Apostle  pro- 
ceeds to  impress  on  their  minds  the  urgent  need  he  has  just 
represented. 

Ver.  2.  For  if  the  word  spoken  through  angels  became  stead- 
fast, and  every  transgression  and  disobedience  received  a  just 
recompense  of  reward ;  3  a,  how  shall  we  escape,  having  neglected 
so  great  salvation? 

^  b(j)ei^tv,  dint  ohiir/ndonem. ;  6el,  ii,rgev.i  periculum.     Bengel. 

*  So  Chrysostom,  Pareus,  etc.    '  So  riaiumond,  de  Wette,  Liin.,  Del.  and  most. 

*  Luther. 


32       ANGELS  AND   THEIR  WORD  VS.  TRANSGRESSION,    [ii.  2,  3  a. 

The  mention  of  the  word  spoken  through  angels  shows  plainly 
in  what  light  the  Apostle  has  instituted  the  comparison  between 
the  Son  and  them.  It  is,  as  we  have  assumed,  because  both  are 
agents  of  a  revelation  from  God.  In  pointing  his  admonition 
he  describes  the  chief,  or  at  least  the  characteristic  traits  of  their 
agency  in  this  matter,  and  this,  be  it  noted,  describes  that  service 
for  which  they  are  sent  forth  as  stated  i.  14.  Indirectly,  also,  the 
description  intimates  what  was  the  character  of  "  the  word 
spoken  through  angels."  To  begin  with  this  latter  thought,  the 
Apostle  intimat(»s  of  their  word,  that  its  chief  characteristics  were 
prohibitions  and  commands ;  for  this  is  implied  in  the  expres- 
sions :  transgressions  and  disobedience.  Such  was  the  chief  char- 
acteristic of  the  law  communicated  by  Moses  at  Sinai,  which,  as 
we  have  already  noted,  the  Jews  believed  came  through  the 
agency  of  angels.  Such,  moreover,  is  the  aspect  in  which  the 
law  is  uniformly  presented  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Apostle, 
also,  in  expressly  stating  that  such  "  transgressions  and  disobe- 
dience received  a  just  recompense  of  reward,"  and  further  on 
again  (iii.  7  sqq.)  by  recurring  evidently  to  the  same  fact,  shows 
that  he  means  the  punitive  judgments  that  were  inflicted  during 
the  wanderings  in  the  wilderness,  and  others  like  them.  From 
all  this  it  appears,  that,  as  has  been  noted  already,  the  Apostle 
means  by  "  the  word  spoken  through  angels,"  the  same  law  of 
Moses  that  is  discoursed  on  in  Romans  and  Galatians.  The 
mention  of  punishment  here,  along  with  the  word  they  spoke,  inti- 
mates that  the  visitation  of  merited  punishment  is  something  with 
which  the  angels  are  charged ;  that  is,  that  having  spoken  the  word, 
they  are  charged  with  executing  it.  This  is  the  service  on  which 
"  they  are  sent  forth  on  account  of  them  that  are  to  inherit  salva- 
tion." Not  on  account  of  these  exclusively,  of  course  ;  but  still 
on  their  account,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  law  which  is  on 
account  of  transgressors,  is  also  a  tutor  to  lead  to  Christ  them 
that  are  to  be  saved.  By  calling  the  punishments  a  just  recom- 
pense of  reward  (a  full-sounding  phrase,  and  a  favorite  one  in 
this  epistle  and  peculiar  to  it ;  comp.  x.  35 ;  xi.  26),  the  Apos- 
tle describes  them  as  given  in  full  measure,  and  intimates  that,  as 
just  (k'vdixov),  they  are  inevitable,  and  the  only  thing  to  be  looked 


ii.  2,  3  a.]       salvation  neglected  :  how  escape. 


33 


for  from  that  quarter.  The  word  tlicn  spoken,  he  says,  became 
steadfast.  This  means  more  than  that  it  ivas  steadfast,  or  that  it 
became  steadfast  by  reason  of  the  way  in  which  it  was  communi- 
cated, viz.,  through  angels,  such  great  authority.  "  It  remained," 
says  the  Apostle,  "  in  force  and  steadfast,  as  gradually  appeared, 
in  that  it  was  not  transgressed  with  impunity."  ^ 

Having  represented  this  most  characteristic  thing  about  the 
law  of  Moses,  or,  in  other  words,  about  the  service  of  angels, 
the  Apostle  draws  the  inference  in  ver.  3.  How  shall  we  escape? 
he  says.  By  this  he  does  not  intend  a  comparison  of  a  minore 
ad  majus,^  and  the  How  is  not  equivalent  to  "  How  much  more." 
At  X.  20,  and  xii.  25,  the  Apostle  makes  this  comparison,  which  has 
influenced  most  readers  to  understand  him  in  the  same  way  here. 
But  the  distinctness  of  his  "  How  much  more "  used  there  is 
proof  that  he  would  have  used  the  same  expression  here,  had 
he  meant  the  same  comparison.  But  he  says  simply  :  How  shall 
we  escape.  This  How,  i.  e.,  "  how  is  it  possible,"  derives  its  force 
from  the  representation  of  ver.  2,  which  is  its  proper  premise. 
The  word  spoken  by  angels,  in  other  words,  the  law  of  Moses, 
being  such  as  there  described,  presents  only  the  notion  of  some- 
thing that  condemns.  Its  force  and  steadfastness  had  appeared 
in  punitive  dispensations.  How,  when  subjected  only  to  that 
law,  could  they  escape  such  visitations  of  its  just  recompense  as 
had  already  been  experienced  ?  How  shall  we  escape,  says  the 
Apostle,  with  an  emphasis  on  :  we,  that  was  peculiarly  appropriate 
in  a  discourse  of  a  Jew,  directed  exclusively  to  Jews  that  were 
under  the  law,  and  were  the  descendants  of  the  very  ones  that 
had  experienced  the  just  punishments  referred  to.  With  refer- 
ence to  "  the  word  spoken  by  angels,"  then,  the  Author  treats 
the  situation  of  those  that  had  only  that  revelation,  as  a  state  of 
condemnation,  and  that  the  one  thing  of  interest  remaining  was, 
how  to  escape.^     It  is  this  moves  him,  in  the  following  clause, 

1  So  von  Hof.  *  Against  Liin.,  Alford,  Davidson,  etc. 

3Comp.  Gal.  iii.,  10  sqq.,  and  Heb.  ix.  15.  This  against  Moulton,  in  the 
Handy  Commentary,  in  loc,  who,  while  owning  this  obvious  interpretation 
says:  In  a  different  context  these  words  might  naturally  mean  this.  Here, 
however,  they  mean  something  totally  different. 

3 


34  CHARACTERISTIC   OF  THE   GOSPEL  [ii.  2,  3  a. 

and  all  the  present  context  (comp.  i.  14),  to  refer  to  the  word 
spoken  by  the  Son  under  the  name  salvation.  Such  escape  can 
only  be  by  a  salvation.  That  word,  the  Apostle  affirms  indi- 
rectly, brings  salvation  for  this  situation.  The  Apostle's  question 
in  full,  is  :  How  shall  we  escape  having  neglected  so  great  salva- 
tion ?  Having  neglected,  i.  e.,  "  after  neglecting  "  (aorist  participle), 
presents  for  consideration  the  situation  after  one  has  neglected,  or 
in  the  words  of  ver.  1,  after  one  has  given  so  little  heed  to  the 
things  that  were  spoken  as  to  have  drifted  by  them  and  missed 
what  they  oflPer.  The  Author  recurs  to  this  thought  again  at  iii. 
7-19  ;  vi :  4-8,  x.  26,  27,  giving  it  a  more  intense  expression, 
while  at  x.  28,  29  ;  xii.  25,  he  repeats  the  warning  of  our  vers.  2, 
3,  in  the  intenser  form  of  a  "  how  much  more,"  or  of  reasoning  a 
minore  ad  majus} 

*  As  a  side  light  to  the  Author's  manner  of  pressing  his  subject  on  his  Jewish 
readers,  we  may  compare  the  manner  of  other  inspired  speakers  in  preaching 
the  gospel  to  the  same  class,  and  to  Paul's  own  manner  elsewhere.  A  remark- 
able correspondence  appears  from  this  investigation,  and  one  that  justifies  us 
in  understanding  that  such  was  the  one,  characteristic  way  of  approaching  the  Jews 
ivith  the  gospel. 

John  Baptist,  sounded  the  key-note  when  he  said :  "  who  hath  warned  you 
to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,"  Matt.  iii.  7  ;  Luke  iii :  7.  And  he  intimates 
plainly,  that  the  wrath  was  then  impending :  "  Even  now  is  the  axe  laid  unto 
the  root  of  the  trees ; "  and,  that,  whether  it  would  do  its  destroying  work  or 
not,  depended  on  how  they  received  the  Messiah,  whose  forerunner  he  was  : 
"  whose  fan  is  in  His  hand,  and  He  will  thoroughly  cleanse  His  threshing-floor ; 
and  He  will  gather  His  wheat  into  the  garner,  but  the  chafl"  He  will  burn  up 
with  unquenchable  fire."  This  may  be  taken  as  the  Baptist's  own  amplification 
of  his  briefer  warning :  "  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." 
Matt.  iii.  2. 

When  Jesus  began  to  preach.  He  used  the  same  brief  warning,  Matt.  iii.  17, 
and  with  the  same  meaning.  As  He  gradually  amplifies  the  meaning  of  the 
warning,  it  appears  that  the  impending  judgment  was  that  national  calamity, 
viz.,  the  rejection  of  the  chosen  people,  of  which  the  central  and  most  appalling 
feature  was  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  This  appears  in  the  warning  upon 
the  occasion  of  Galilean's  slain  at  their  very  sacrifices  by  Pilate,  and  of  others 
crushed  by  the  tower  of  Siloam,  (Luke  xiii.  1-5),  where  His  words :  "  Except  ye 
repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish,"  intimate,  too  truthfully,  the  horrors  of  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  destruction  that  overtook  the  Jews  in  the  temple 
itself,  and  in  the  very  act  of  sacrifice.  And  the  succeeding  parable  of  the 
fig-tree  explains  the  ground  of  the  judgment.  But  it  is  in  the  closing  days 
of  His  ministry,  and  in  full  view  of  His  approaching  death,  by  which,  in 


ii.  2,  3  a.]  when  preached  to  Israelites.  35 

Paul  says  :  so  great  salvation,  wath  double  emphasis,  viz.,  on 
the  salvation,  and  the  faet  that  it  is  so  great.  He  has  mentioned 
the  salvation  already,  i.  14,  and  repeating  the  mention  of  it,  he 
calls  attention  to  its  character  :  and  such  a  salvation  !  This  leads 
him  to  describe  it  in  a  way  to  set  forth  its  admirable  character. 
In  doing  this,  he  points  some  contrasts  that  show  its  fitness  to  be 
a  salvation  from  the  word  spoken  by  angels,  and  to  illustrate  how 
it  (as  a  word  spoken)  is  a  better  revelation  than  the  word  spoken 
by  angels.  Thus  we  have  a  transition  from  the  previous 
aj^rioral  argument  that  it  must  be  a  better  revelation  because  of 
the  better  agent. 

Paul  points  to  some  outward  traits  that  illustrates  the  admira- 
ble nature  of  "  the  word  that  was  heard." 

Ver.  3.  b.  Which  [salvation]  having  taken  a   beginning  of 

rejecting  Him,  the  Jews  filled  up  the  measure  of  their  iniquity,  that  Christ 
predicts  this  judgment  in  the  plainest  language.  This  appears  in  the  para- 
ble of  the  wicked  husbandmen,  and  its  sentence:  "He  will  miserably  destroy 
those  miserable  men,"  Matt.  xxi.  41  ;  and  again  in  the  parable  of  the  mar- 
riage of  the  King's  son ;  "  But  the  King  was  wroth  ;  and  he  sent  his  armies 
and  destroyed  those  murderers,  and  burned  their  city,"  Matt.  xxii.  7.  And 
finally,  in  the  discourse  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  He  describes  the  now  inevi- 
table ruin  with  even  the  detail  and  graphic  power  of  the  historian.  "  Then 
shall  be  great  tribulation,"  said  He,  "such  as  hath  not  been  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world  until  now,  no,  nor  ever  shall  be."  Matt.  xxiv.  21. 

With  these  words  still  ringing  in  their  ears,  the  Apostles  begin  in  their  turn 
to  preach  the  gospel ;  and  the  first  audience  is  the  same,  viz.,  the  Jews. 
Instantly  they  take  up  the  same  warning,  and  press  their  hearers  to  accept 
deliverance  by  Christ,  or  expect  their  doom.  It  appears  in  the  conclusion  of 
Peters  fii-st  sermon  ;  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  he  does  it  with  appeal  to  the 
same  prophetic  scripture  that  the  Author  uses  in  our  chap.  i.  13,  and  which  leads 
him  up  to  the  warning  of  our  text,  ii.  1-4 :  "  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till  I  make  thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy 
feet.  Let  all  the  house  of  Israel  therefore  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath 
made  him  both  Lord  and  Christ,  this  .lesus  whom  ye  crucified."  Acts  ii.  34- 
36.  And  when  the  Jewish  multitude  were  thereupon  "  pricked  in  their 
heart,"  the  point  that  gave  anguish  to  their  hearts  was  the  approliension  of 
divine  judgment  plainly  foretold  and  richly  merited  ;  merited  not  only  by  their 
rejection  of  Christ,  l)ut  by  a  long  course  of  similar  rebellion  against  (iod  of 
which  this  was  but  the  crowning  act.  Comp.  Matt,  xxiii.  29-36.  And  their 
anxious  enquiry :  What  shall  we  do  is  equivalent  to  the  :  How  shall  we  escape, 
of  our  text. 

The  warning  we  are  considering  appears  further  on  the  same  occasion  in 


36  BY   JOHN  BAPTIST,  JESUS,  [ii.  3  h,  4. 

being  spoken  through  the  Lord,  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them 
that  heard ;  4.  God  bearing  witness  with  them  both  by  signs  and 
wonders,  and  by  manifold  powers  and  distributions  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  according  to  his  own  will. 

In  this  mention  of  the  form  and  manner  of  imparting  the 
revelation  through  Christ,  the  Apostle  reiterates  that  it  Avas 
spoken  by  the  Son.  But  as  this  thought  has  been  sufficiently- 
elaborated,  he  mentions  it  now  without  emphasis,  in  order  the 
more  to  emphasize  the  additional  traits  that  he  mentions.  In 
the  words  before-  us  he  calls  Christ  the  Lord,  a  designation  he 
uses  only  twice  again  in  this  epistle.^  To  this,  he  may  be 
influenced  here  by  the  representations  he  has  just  made,  i.  10-12, 
wherein  the  Son  appears  addressed  by  that  title.  This  reference 
greatly  magnifies  the  importance  of  *'  the  things  that  were  heard," 

Peter's  words :  "  Save  yourselves  from  this  crooked  generation,"  Acts  iii.  40. 
A  crooked  generation  is  one  doomed  to  divine  wrath  and  destruction,  (comp. 
Deut.  xxxii.  5,  15-26).  And  such  was  that  generation  of  the  Jews.  "  Save 
yourselves,"  to  Peter's  hearers,  meant  salvation  from  that  impending  doom. 
And  note  again  the  correspondence  of  this  expression  to  the :  great  salvation 
of  our  text. 

Again  this  warning  of  destruction  appears  in  the  second  recorded  sermon  of 
Peter,  Acts  iii.  22  sqq.,  where,  having  quoted  the  language  of  Moses  referring 
to  Christ,  he  says :  "  And  it  shall  be,  that  every  soul,  which  shall  not  hearken 
to  that  propliet,  shall  be  utterly  destroyed  from  among  the  people."  And  let 
it  be  noted,  that  the  judgment  is  represented  as  the  same  in  kind  as  those  that 
came  upon  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  and  to  which  our  Author  appeals  in  our 
passage,  and  also  makes  other  appeals  further  on  in  our  epistle  (comp.  iii. 
7-19 ;  vi.  4-8). 

This  same  warning  is  the  key-note  of  Stephen's  dying  speech  to  the  rulers 
of  the  Jews.  It  had  been  the  burden  of  that  powerful  preaching  that  made 
him  so  obnoxious  to  them,  as  appears  in  the  corrupt  evidence  of  suborned 
witnesses  who  testified :  "  We  have  heard  him  say,  that  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
shall  destroy  this  place,  and  shall  change  the  customs  which  Moses  delivered 
unto  us,"  Acts  vi.  14.  In  his  dying  address  itself,  we  have,  what  may  be 
taken  as  an  extended  comment  on  the  words  of  our  passage :  "  The  word 
spoken  through  angels  became  steadfast,  and  every  transgression  and  disobe- 
dience received  a  just  recompense  of  reward,"  as  they  are  interpreted  above. 
The  climax  of  his  address,  when  he  was  cut  short  by  the  wrath  of  his  hearers. 
Acts  vii.  51, 52,  are  almost  a  reiteration  of  the  words  of  Christ,  Matt,  xxiii.  31-36, 
while  ver.  53,  "  ye  who  received  the  law  as  it  was  ordained  by  angels,  and 
kept  it  not,"  is  as  nearly  like  our  verse  2. 

1  vii.  14 ;  xiii.  20. 


3  h,   4.]  STEPHEN,  PETER,  PAUL.  37 

seeing  that  the  speaker  was  no  less  than  the  Lord  that  made  earth 
and  heaven.  Or  he  may  be  influenced  to  use  this  title  because  he 
mentions  Christ  here  in  connection  with  His  Apostles,  and  others 
whom  He  commissioned  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  such  was  the 
customary  title.  It  may  be  proper  to  ascribe  to  both  of  these 
considerations  their  influence. 

But  the  peculiar  phrase  by  which  the  Apostle  expresses 
Christ's  part  in  speaking  the  word  of  salvation  challenges  atten- 
tion. The  salvation  took  a  beginning  of  being  spoken  through 
the  Lord.  ISIark  entitles  his  whole  book  :  ''  Beginning  of  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  ^  Properly  understood,  this  means  :  all 
that  which  he  recounts  was  the  beginning  of  the  gospel.  Luke, 
in  the  preface  to  his  book  of  the  gospel,  calls  it  "  a  narrative  con- 
cerning those  matters  delivered  by  those  who  from  the  beginning 

The  mantle  of  Stephen  fell  on  Saul  of  Tarsus,  that  held  the  mantels  of  those 
that  stoned  Stephen.  In  his  first  recorded  sermon  (and  the  only  recorded 
sermon  of  Paul's  to  a  purely  Jewish  audience),  he  enforces  the  offer  of  tlie 
gospel  at  the  conclusion  of  his  address  in  these  words :  "  Beware,  therefore,  lest 
that  come  upon  you,  which  is  spoken  in  the  prophets  ;  Behold,  ye  despisers, 
and  wonder  and  perish ;  for  I  work  a  work  in  your  days,  a  work  which  ye  shall 
in  nowise  believe,  if  we  declare  it  unto  you."  Acts  xiii.  40,  41 .  In  these  words 
we  find  a  close  correspondence  to  our  passage,  and  the  cognate,  x.  26-31,  even  to 
the  reference  of  the  "  therefore  "  to  the  foregoing  context  of  Acts  xiii.  38,  39. 

Paul  repeats  the  same  manner  of  pressing  Jesus  on  the  Jews,  in  that  con- 
ference he  had  with  a  large  representation  of  the  Jews  resident  in  Rome  (see 
Acts  xxviii.  23-28),  concluding  his  appeal  with  what  may  be  called  the  stern- 
est and  most  uncompromising  language  of  all  scripture,  quoting  Isa.  vi.  9,  10. 
It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  by  comparison  of  Matt.  xiii.  14;  Mark  iv.  12;  Luke 
viii.  10 ;  and  John  xii.  40,  that  he  followed  in  this,  the  example  of  Christ's 
teaching.  In  fact,  the  language  in  question:  "By  hearing,  ye  shall  hear,  and 
shall  in  no  wise  understand,  .  .  .  lest  haply  they  should  perceive  with  their 
eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand  with  their  heart,  and  should 
turn  again,  and  I  should  heal  them,"  may  be  said  to  be.  a  Jew's  text,  primarily 
and  purely  for  Jews,  and  to  be  used  for  Gentiles,  only  by  proper  adaptation. 

The  severity,  and  uncompromising  roughness  of  this  manner  of  pressing  the 
Jews  with  the  gospel  does  not  appear  in  the  scriptural  examples  of  preaching 
to  Gentiles.  It  was  justified,  not  only,  but  demanded  in  their  case,  because  of 
their  previous  relation  to  God,  and  their  long  preparation  for  the  gospel,  and 
because  of  the  urgency  of  tlie  crisis.  (Conip.  below,  on  v.  12,  "when,  on 
account  of  the  time.")  The  judgment  impended.  As  our  Author  says :  "And 
exhort  so  much  the  more  as  ye  see  the  day  approaches."  x.  25. 
^  See  J.  A.  Alexander  on  Mark  i.  1. 


38  THE  WORD  OF   THE    BEGINNING  OF  CHRIST     [ii.  3  b,  4. 

were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word."  And  in  Acts  i. 
1,  2,  he  describes  the  same  book  as  having  been  written  :  "  about 
all  things  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach  until  the  day 
in  which  He  was  received  up.  Also  in  vi.  1/  we  find  our  Author 
uses  the  expression  :  "  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ.'^  We 
notice  in  these  citations  a  custom  of  regarding  aud  speaking  of 
the  presence  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  of  His  personal  ministry,  as 
the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  and  even  as  the  beginning  of 
Christ's  own  doing  aud  teaching.  Thus,  when  the  Apostle, 
i.  1,  says  that  God  finally  spoke  in  a  Son,  we  see  now 
that  he  did  not  mean,  and  would  not  be  understood  by  his  read- 
ers to  mean,  that  "  the  things  that  were  heard,"  i.e.,  when  God  so 
spoke,  were  from  Christ  personally  on  earth  and  from  Him  alone. 
It  was  the  common  understanding  of  Apostolic  times  to  under- 
stand far  more,  viz.,  that  from  Christ's  commissioned  "  ministers 
of  the  word  "  were  to  be  received  this  word  of  revelation.  Hence 
what  they  preached  was  called  "the  word  of  God"  and  "the  word 
of  the  Lord."  ^  Luke,  in  Acts  i.  1-5,  represents  this  in  very 
plain  words.  The  Apostle  and  others  were  to  be  endowed  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  continue  the  revelation  in  which  "  God  spoke 
to  us  in  a  Son."  Much  more  to  the  same  effect,  and  equally  plain. 

It  is  expedient  to  confine  the  present  discussion  here,  and  simply  refer  to 
passages  that  present  matter  bearing  on  the  same  subject.  (See  Rom.  ii.  5-9  ; 
ix.  21,  22;  xi.  8,  25;  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16 ;  v.  9  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  1-12).  To  rep- 
resent that  bearing  would  involve  very  much  space  in  order  to  adjust  wliat 
might  be  represented  with  a  proper  account  of  the  many  divergent  exegetical 
views. 

Enough  has  been  given,  however,  to  show,  as  remarked  above,  that  one 
characteristic  manner  marked  the  Apostolic  practice  in  pressing  the  gospel  on 
the  Jews.  It  treated  them  as  exposed  to  divine  judgment,  under  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  the  revelation  already  given,  particularly,  of  the  law  of 
Moses.  That  calamity  was  near,  and  the  situation  was  one  which,  if  not 
helped,  left  nothing  to  be  expected  but  a  "  fearful  reception  of  judgment  and 
of  fiery  zeal  a-coming  to  devour  the  opposers  "  of  the  gospel.  Heb.  x.  27. 

As  in  the  present  epistle  Paul  wrote  to  Jews,  the  matter  now  represented 
may  be  assumed  to  have  had  a  determining  influence  in  what  he  says ;  and 
the  modern  reader  must  allow  it  a  large  influence  in  his  effort  to  put  himself 
in  the  place  of  the  original  readers  of  the  epistle,  so  that  he  may  understand 
as  they  understood. 

1  Comp.  at  vi.  1.         '^  e.  g.  Acts  iv.  31 ;  vi.  2,  7 ;  vii.  25 ;  xiii.  5,  7,  48,  49. 


ii.  3  h,  4.]        CONFIRMED    BY    THEM    THAT    HEARD.  39 

might  be  appealed  to  iu  the  New  Testament.  Tlie  foregoing 
citations,  however,  appear  the  most  apposite  because  they  are 
expressions  of  contemporary  writers,  not  reporting  the  sayings 
of  the  past,  but  reflecting  the  mode  of  exjjression  current  in  their 
own  times,  when  they  wrote.  The  Apostle's  expression  that  we 
are  considering,  though  peculiar,  and  commonly  apprehended  to 
mean  less  than  it  does,  is,  as  we  have  said,  not  emphatic;  it 
refers  simply  to  Christ's  personal  ministry  of  the  gospel  in  terms 
and  with  the  view  of  it  that  was  commonly  received. 

What  the  Apostle  emphasizes  here  is  expressed  in  the  words  : 
was  confirmed  to  us  by  them  that  heard.^     This  refers  to  the 

^  The  Apostle  says :  was  confirmed  to  us,  Important  inferences  as  to  the  Author 
of  this  epistle,  and  as  to  the  time  of  its  writing,  and  as  to  ita  readers,  have  been 
made  from  this :  us.  As  to  the  Author,  it  has  been  inferred  that  no  Apostle  could 
have  written  it;  least  of  all  Paul  (Farrar,  in  loc,  etc.,  chap.  xvii. ;  Davidson  ; 
Moulton,  in  Handy  Comm.,  etc.),  who  in  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians  and 
elsewhere,  is  so  particular  about  vindicating  his  apostleship,  and  maintaining 
that  he  received  his  revelation  from  Christ  Himself,  and  not  by  means  of  others. 
(So  Liin.,  Del. ;  comp.  Gal.  i.  1,  11,  12.)  But  if  this  epistle  was  written  for 
Hebrews  exclusivel}',  and  by  a  Hebrew,  there  is  nothing  to  justify  this  infer- 
ence, even  against  Paul's  authorship.  He  speaks  here  just  as  he  does  ini.  1,  and 
as  he  did  in  the  synagogue  of  Antioch  of  Pisidia :  "  Brethren,  children  of  the 
stock  of  Abraham,  and  those  among  you  that  fear  God,  to  vs  is  the  word  of 
this  salvation  sent  forth,"  Acts  xiii.  26.  But  it  is  urged,  that  Paul  would  not 
rank  himself  among  those  to  whom  that  truth  "was  confirmed  by  those  that 
heard,"  but  would  claim  himself  to  be  one  of  those  that  heard.  (So  Liin.,  Del.) 
Yet  in  that  same  address  just  referred  to,  Paul,  speaking  to  Hebrews  exclu- 
sively, said :  "  But  God  raised  him  from  the  dead ;  and  he  was  seen  for  many 
days  of  them  that  came  up  with  him  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  who  are  notu 
his  witnesses  unto  the  -people.  And  we  bring  you  good  tidings  of  the  promise 
made  unto  the  fathers,  how  that  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  our  children 
in  that  he  raised  up  Jesus,"  Acts  xiii.  30-33.  (Comp.  Kay,  in  (Speaker's) 
Bible  Comm.,  Introd.  iii..  Sect.  3,  §  iii.).  Here  are  the  very  traits  tiiat 
are  supposed  to  be  convincing  proof  tliat  Paul  could  not  liave  written  our  text, 
Heb.  ii.  3,  4.  We  have  the  first  person  plural,  and  we  have  the  appeal  to  wit- 
nesses of  Christ,  with  no  reference  to  himself  as  one  of  them.  It  is  the  more 
remarkable,  because  the  particular  testimony  referred  to  is,  that  Jesus  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead,  and  that  was  the  one  great  historical  fact  concerning 
Jesus  of  which  Paul  was  also  a  witness.  That  remarkable  address  of  Paul's, 
in  the  synagogue  of  Pisidian  Antiocli,  is  very  instructive,  when  compared 
with  this  e])istle.  Its  concluding  words,  vers.  38-41,  are  an  ejjitome  of  the 
chief  doctrine  of  this  epistle,  and  contain  the  same  warning  that  is  given  in 
the  text  we  are  studying,  and  that  is  reiterated,  again  and  again,  in  stronger 


40  AUTHOR,  DATE  AND  READERS.      [ii.  3  h,   4. 

Apostles  and  others  that  authoritatively  preached  the  gospel. 
The  emphatic  thought  is  exi^ressed  in  the  word  translated 
confirmed,  which  is  the  verbal  form  of  the  adjective  translated 
"  steadfast "  iu  ver  2.  The  Apostle  expresses  that  this  "  salva- 
tion "  became  steadfast  to  those  to  whom  God  spoke  it,  as  well 
as  did  "  the  word  spoken  by  angels."  The  antithesis  will  appear 
if  we  translate:  "which  [salvation]  taking  a  beginning  of  being 
spoken  through  the  Lord,  was  made  steadfast  to  us  by  those  that 
heard."  The  thought  is  completed  by  what  is  added  in  ver.  4, 
in  close  connection. 

terms,  as  the  Author  proceeds.  But  this  fact  appears  in  the  comparison,  viz., 
that,  when  Paul  addressed  an  exclusively  Jewish  gathering,  his  manner  was 
different  from  what  it  was  when  addressing  Gentiles.  Comp.  Acts  xxii.  18. 
That  difference  appears  as  plainly  in  the  brief  address  in  the  synagogue  (the 
only  one  of  the  kind  fully  reported)  as  in  this  long  epistle.  While  it  does  not 
touch  the  question  of  difference,  or  as  others  will  have  it,  discrepancy  in  doc- 
trine, who  may  say  what  must  be  the  limit  of  tliat  difference?  The  differ- 
ences between  the  manner  of  this  epistle  and,  say,  that  to  the  Komans,  are 
many ;  but  as  to  doctrine,  while  some  things  have  not  the  prominence  here 
that  they  have  there,  discrepancy  there  is  none.  The  objection  to  Paul's 
authorship  that  we  have  been  considering  has  no  force. 

The  inference  as  to  the  time  ofwritinrf  this  epistle  is,  that  tlie  clause  :  "  was  con- 
firmed unto  us  by  those  tliat  heard,"  implies  that  the  writer,  as  well  as  his 
readers,  belonged  to  a  second  generation  of  Christians  (Liin.).  The  citation 
from  Acts  xiii.  30-33,  just  given  above,  shows  how  little  that  inference  is  justi- 
fied. The  lapse  of  even  a  few  years  of  spreading  the  gospel  would  be  enough 
to  make  it  improper  to  say  of  the  Apostles  to  a  Christian  company  of  some 
standing :  "  who  are  now  his  witnesses,"  and  would  require  instead  an  aoristic 
form  of  expression  like  our  Heb.  ii.  3.  Besides  (as  von  Hofmann  replies), 
how  could  tliose  that  heard  the  witnesses  of  Christ  belong  to  a  different  gen- 
eration from  the  latter  ? 

The  inference  as  to  the  readers  of  this  epistle  from  the  words :  "  was  confirmed 
unto  us  "  is,  that  the  Apostle  wrote  to  Christians  who  did  not  see  and  hear  the 
Lord  while  He  was  on  earth  ;  therefore,  his  readers  were  not  Christians  in 
Palestine.  (So  von  Hof.)  If  there  were  any  force  in  this  objection,  why  should  the 
Lord  Jesus  say,  that  His  disciples  were  to  be  witnesses,  and  that  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  His  name  among  all  nations,  beginning 
from  Jerusahm?  (Luke  xxix.  47,  48 ;  comp.  Acts  i.  8).  And  why  did  Peter,  at 
a  time  when  he  had  little  idea  of  testifying  to  any  but  Jews  in  Palestine,  pro- 
mote the  election  of  Matthias  to  be  a  witness  with  the  other  Apostles  of  the 
resurrection?  (Acts  i.  22).  And  why  did  he  say:  And  we  are  witnesses  of 
all  things  which  he  did,  both  in  the  country  of  the  Jews,  and  in  Jerusalem. 
(Acts  x.  39).     The  inference  is  obviously  incorrect. 


ii.  3  h,  4.]  TESTIMONY   OF    THE   HOLY   SPIRIT.  41 

In  ver.  4  the  Apostle  emphasizes  how  that  salvation  was 
imparted  by  those  that  heard.  It  was  in  a  way  that  excluded  all 
uncertainty,  in  that,  when  those  who  heard  the  Son  began  to  im- 
part in  turn  the  salvation  to  others,  God  attended  them  with  His 
testimony  to  the  truth  of  Avhat  they  taught.  This  testimony  of 
God  was  by  signs  and  wonders  and  manifold  powers,  and  distri- 
butions of  the  Holy  Spirit  according  to  his  own  will.  The  qualify- 
ing phrase :  accordiag  to  his  own  will,  applies  only  to  :  distribu- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit,^  and  not  to  all  or  any  other  of  the  particu- 
lars that  precede  that,  and  is  intended  to  denote,  not  only  that 
these  distributions  proceeded  from  the  free  grace  of  God,  but 
that  they  Mere  in  great  variety  as  to  their  nature  and  degree, 
and  in  great  abundance.^  What  is  referred  to  is  primarily  the 
miraculous  manifestations  that  attended  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles,  and  were  the  proof  of  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  then  the  charismata  generally.^ 

Thus  the  Apostle  has  shown,  that  what  God  spoke  through 
the  Son  must  be  a  greater  and  better  revelation  for  those  that  had 
it  than  what  was  spoken  by  angels,  because  of  the  superior 
excellence  of  the  Sou  as  an  agent  of  revelation  (i.  1-14).  Thus 
far  he  uses  an  aprioral  method. 

To  the  admonition,  that  proportionate  heed  should  be  given  to 
that  revelation  (ii.  1),  and  with  the  purpose  of  enforcing  that 
admonition,  he  has  added  still  other  considerations,  viz.,  the  mode 
in  which  it  was  imparted  and  confirmed,  proving  that  the  revela- 
tion is  greater  and  better.     While  the  word  spoken  by  angels 

As  the  text  before  us  is  regarded  as  one  of  the  clearest  intimations  in  our 
epistle  relative  to  the  inferences  just  noticed,  it  deserves  the  attention  we  have 
given  it.  By  disposing  of  it,  we  have  disposed  of  many  that  are  urged  against 
Paul's  authorship.  We  may  note  on  the  other  hand,  that  Delitzsch,  who  has 
much  to  offer  against  the  view  that  Paul  is  the  author,  admits  that  our  phrase : 
"was  confirmed  to  us"  is  quite  in  Paul's  style;  two  of  his  modes  of  expres- 
sion are  combined  in  it:  (1)  "f,  =  "to,"  of  them  to  whom  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  was  addressed,  and  to  whom  it  came  (1  Thess.  i.  5 ;  comp.  2  Cor.  viii. 
6  ;  Col.  i.  25  ;  1  Pet.  i.  25) ;  (2)  fieliawvv  =  "  to  confirm,"  of  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  in  demonstration  of  the  spirit  and  of  power  (1  Cor.  i.  6 ;  Phil.  i.  7). 

^  So  Liin.,  Alford,  and  many  others.  ^  So  Liin. 

'Acts  ii.  1-4;  iv.  31 ;  x.  44;  1  Cor.  xii.  4-11. 


42  ANGELS  NOT  LOEDS  [ii.  5. 

became  steadfast  by  the  dreadful  agency  of  divine  judgments,  the 
word  spoken  by  the  Son  was  made  steadfast  simultaneously  with 
its  utterance  by  the  demonstration  of  God  Himself  by  His  Holy 
Spirit.  Not  only  the  convincing  way,  but  the  merciful  way  of 
sending  forth  and  establishing  this  salvation  makes  it  so  admir- 
able. So  great  a  salvation  must  be  the  only  salvation.  Neglect- 
ing it,  must  leave  no  escape  from  the  consequence  of  transgres- 
sion and  disobedience.^ 

Having  represented  the  urgency  of  the  situation  that  requires 
his  readers  to  escape  from  the  word  spoken  by  angels,  in 
other  words,  from  the  inevitable  consequences  of  transgression 
and  disobedience  of  that  word,  and  having  pointed  to  the  gos- 
pel of  Christ  as  the  only  salvation,  in  terms  that  display  the 
greatness  of  it,  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  represent  how  there  comes 
to  he  such  a  salvation,  i.e.,  a  dispensation  that  is  escape  from  the 
foregoing  dispensation  revealed  by  the  agency  of  angels. 

Ver.  5.  For  not  unto  angels  did  he  subject  the  world  to  come,  of 
which  we  speak.  Such  is  the  Author's  proposition.  And,  with  the 
proof  following,  it  is  the  first  blow  given  to  the  entering  wedge 
that  is  to  divide  the  old  from  the  new  revelation.  The  subject 
of  the  verb  subjected  is  God,  mentioned  in  ver.  4  as  partici- 
pating actively  in  the  revelation  of  the  gospel,  and  imparting  to 
it  the  character  of  an  express  and  particular  revelation.  For 
connects  with  :  salvation,  ver.  3,  and  the  whole  attending  represen- 
tation of  it  as  very  great.^  The  mention  of  angels  is  because 
the  Author  continues  the  contemplation  of  Christ,  as  an  agent 
of  revelation  in  relation  to  those  antecedent  agents,  the  angels, 
and  of  his  word  in  relation  to  theirs.  The  negative  affirmation 
of  something  not  subjected  to  angels  implies  something  that  was 
subjected,  and  something  obvious.  What  was  subjected  to  them 
was  not  this  world.^  It  refers  to  the  situation  represented,  i.  14 ; 
ii.  2,  which  evidently  does  represent  a  ministration  committed  to 
angels,  and  a  state  of  things  subjected  to  their  ministry  (i.  14). 
The  time  referred  to  by :  subjected  (aorist)  is  when  the  angels 
by  divine  commission  spoke  their  word. 

^  Comp.  X.  26.  2  So  von  Hof.  ^  So  Davidson. 


ii.  5.]  OF  THE   WORLD   TO   COME.  43 

The  world  to  come  (-rryv  oixouiiivt^v  rijv  jiikkouaav  =  the  world  that 
should  afterwards  come)  represents  in  other  words  the  same 
notion  as  i.  14,  "  those  that  should  afterwards  inherit  salvation." 
The  word  for  world  (^olxou/j.ivr^'j  means  an  inhabited  world  (comp. 
on  i.  6) ;  and  the  world  now  mentioned  is  made  up  of  the  heirs 
of  salvation.  It  would  more  precisely  render  the  meaning  here 
to  translate  :  the  world  that  should  afterwards  be.  For  the  mean- 
ing is,  that  when  God  subjected  to  augcls  something  wherein 
they  were  to  be  agents.  He  did  not  subject  to  them  the  world  that 
should  afterwards  be,  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks ;  in  other 
words,  a  world  that  was  futwre  with  respect  to  their  word  of  revela- 
tion and  their  consequent  ministration.  The  rendering :  the  world 
to  come,  is  inexact,  because  it  seems  to  express  futurity  only  with 
respect  to  this  writing  of  the  Apostle ;  which  is  the  notion  most 
commonly  entertained  of  it.  It  was  future  then ;  it  is  future 
still.  But  it  was  future  also  when  God  spoke  by  angels  ;  and 
that,  not  simply  historically  so,  but  as  something  foreordained  of 
God.  This  truth  regarding  the  world  to  come  is  further  implied 
in  the  representations  of  the  following  vers.  6-9,  where  the 
immediate  purpose  of  the  Author  is  to  represent  that  the  world 
to  come  icas  subjected  to  Christ.  This  must  be  borne  in  mind 
as  the  meaning  when  the  expression :  world  to  come  is  used  in 
the  following  pages.  Of  which  we  speak,  says  the  Apostle,  in 
the  first  person  plural,  meaning  himself,  as  he  evidently  does  in 
other  places  in  our  epistle  (comp.  v.  11 ;  vi.  9,  11  ;  xiii.  18). 
By  saying :  we  speak,  in  the  present  tense,  he  means  the  context 
immediately  preceding,  wherein  he  speaks  of  the  great  salvation, 
and  the  verses  before  us,  wherein  he  continues  to  speak  of  the 
same  subject.  As  spoken  by  the  Lord  and  confirmed  by  those 
that  heard  Him,  the  great  salvation  proclaimed  that  world  to 
come.  And  the  Author,  in  urging  that  salvation  as  the  way  of 
escape,  and  thus  calling  on  men  to  become  heirs  of  salvation  to 
come,  is  speaking  of  a  world  to  come.  In  denying  that  this 
world  to  come  was  subjected  to  angels,  the  Author  does  not 
imply  that  the  present  world  was  subjected  to  them,  as  some  have 
inferred,'  and  thereon  constructed  a  theory  of  angelic  dominion. 

^  e.  g.,  Davidson. 


44  WHAT  IS  MAN?  [ii.  6-8  a. 

Nor,  indeed,  that  any  inhabited  world  was  subjected  to  them. 
The  context  admits  of  no  inference  beyond  that  stated  above. 
But  in  denying  that  the  world  to  come  was  subjected  to  them, 
the  Author  does  mean  that  it  was  subjected  to  some  one.  That 
meaning  he  proceeds  to  unfold. 

Vers.  6-8 a.  But  one  somewhere  testified,  saying:  What  is 
man,  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him ;  or  a  son  of  man,  that  thou  visitest 
him  ?  7.  Thou  madest  him  a  little  lower  than  angels ;  thou  crown- 
edst  him  with  glory  and  honor;  8a.  thou  didst  subject  aU  things 
under  his  feet. 

The  Author  appeals  to  words  found  Ps.  viii.  4-6.     The  genu- 
ine text  omits  part  of  the  words  of  the  passage,*  viz.  "  Thou 
madest  him  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy  hands,"  ver.  6  a. 
The  Apostle,  no  doubt,  freely  uses  as  much  as  suits  his  purpose. 
The  indefiniteness  of  the  terras  one  and  somewhere  need  occasion 
no  difficulty,  and  scarcely  calls  for  remark.    It  has  been  observed 
that  Philo  uses  the  same  :  somewhere  in  quoting  scripture.     By  : 
one  somewhere  "  is  intimated  tliat  it  is  immaterial  to  the  present 
purpose  who  said  this  or  where  it  was  to  be  found,  but  that  it  is 
quoted  as  the  expression  of  a  man,  yet,  of  course,  such  as  has 
the  force  of  a  saying  of  scripture."  ^     Or,  with  Chrysostom,  we 
may  say  :  "  It  is  not  meant  either  to  hide  or  to  reveal  the  one 
that  testifies,  but  indicates  the  source  as  well  known,  and  the 
readers  as  well  versed  in  scripture."      Prefacing  the  quotation 
with  :  one  testifies  somewhere,  makes  a  distinct  appeal  to  what  is 
quoted,  as  authoritative.     What  is  said  is  a  matter  of  testimony, 
and  that,  scripture  testimony.      Moreover,  by  considering  the 
words  in  the  way  of  exposition  (8  6)  and  of  comment  (8  c)  and 
of  application  (9)  the  Author  distinctly  treats  them  as  scriptural 
proof  of  what  he  represents.     All  this  calls  for  special  attention, 
and  for  comparison  with  his  manner  of  using  scriptural  language 
in  i.  5-13.  (Comp.  ii.  12,  13).     It  shows  that  the  Author  knows 
how  to  make  it  plain  that  his  intention  is  to  appeal  to  scripture, 
and  that  we  may  expect  this  of  him  when  he  does  so,  as  we  do 
of  others.     And  when,  as  in  i.  5  sqq.  he  gives  no  such  intimation, 
we  may  understand  him  in  the  way  that  has  been  there  explained. 

1  So  Tisch.,  L.,  Tr.,  Westc.  and  Hort.  '^  von  Hof. 


ii.  6-8  a.]  all  things  under  his  feet.  45 

The  important  part  of  the  present  quotation  is  that  contained 
in  vers.  7,  8  a,  as  the  following  context  shows  by  dwelling  only 
on  that.  What  precedes  expresses  wonder  that  God  should 
bestow  so  much  regard  on  one  who  in  his  own  estimation  as  a 
man,  one  of  the  race,  is  so  insignificant.  What  that  regard  is,  is 
expressed  in  the  description  of  what  God  has  done  for  man. 
That  description  affords  the  Author  proof  of  what  he  has 
affirmed  in  ver.  5,  viz.,  that  the  world  to  come  was  not  subjected 
to  angels.  The  description  represents  what  is  stated  of  the  origi- 
nal work  of  creation.  Gen.  i.  26,  28  ;  and  the  Psalmist  must  be 
understood  as  referring  to  that.  It  is,  natural  to  ask  :  why  does 
our  Author  not  appeal  to  that  passage  instead  of  to  the  Psalm  ? 
In  respect  to  what  was  subjected,  and  that  it  was  subjected  to 
man,  the  Psalm  says  no  more  than  Gen.  i.  26,  28,  except  to  pro- 
nounce, that  by  that  ordinance  man  was  crowned  with  glory  and 
honor.  As  such,  the  testimony  of  the  Psalm  is  secondary,  and 
the  original  decree  would  seem  to  suit  the  purpose  of  our  Author 
better.  Another,  say  the  Apostle  himself,  could  testify  to  as 
much  as  this  on  the  authority  of  scripture,  as  well  as  the  Psalmist, 
and  could  say,  too,  that  thus  man  was  crowned  with  glory  and  honor. 

It  must  be  something;  he  finds  in  the  Psalm  that  is  not  in  the 
original  decree,  that  makes  the  Psalmist's  testimony  more  suit- 
able for  the  Apostle's  purpose.  That  something  is  the  mention 
of  angels,  which  bears  on  his  proposition  ver.  5.  He  finds  in 
that  the  express  affirmation  of  a  distinction  between  angels  and 
man  ;  of  man  having  a  rank  and  glory  all  his  own ;  and  of  all 
things  being  subjected  to  man,  and  not  to  angels.  This  is  the 
point  of  the  quotation ;  and  it  is  admirably  to  the  point.  As 
scripture  proof,  it  is  complete.  It  extends  to  this  :  it  breaks  down 
the  assumption  that  everything  relating  to  human  affairs  is  sub- 
jected to  angels ;  and  it  shows  that  man  has  a  distinct  rank  and 
sphere  of  his  own,  and  that  it  is  such  as  crowns  him  witli  glory 
and  honor  in  no  way  dependent  on  angels  nor  related  to  them. 

With  this  understanding  of  the  scope  of  tlie  Author's  a])peal 
to  the  scripture  in  question,  the  earnest  debate  among  commen- 
tators *  about  the  meaning  of  ver.  7  a,  ijAarrwira?  abrov  ^pa^b  tc 

^  See  Davidson. 


46  NOTHING  LEFT  UNSUBJECTED.  [ii.  8  6. 

nap'  dyyiUou?,  becomes  insignificant.  The  common  translation 
given  above  is  best  sustained  ;  and  also  the  common  understand- 
ing, that  it  expresses  how  man  is  inferior  in  creation  to  angels, 
yet  only  a  little  inferior/  But  whichever  of  the  debated  senses 
is  true,  the  distinction  between  angels  and  men  remains,  and  that 
is  the  point  emphasized,  with  the  view  of  showing  that  to  the 
one,  viz.,  man,  is  given  a  dominion  and  glory  that  is  not  subjected 
to  the  other. 

Moreover,  the  view  now  presented  of  the  Author's  appeal  to 
Ps.  viii.,  relieves  us  of  the  difficulty  commonly  felt  about  the 
Psalm  having  a  Messianic  reference.  Much  ingenuity  has  been 
expended  by  commentators  to  justify  what  they  suppose  the 
Author  believed,  viz.,  that  the  Psalm  spoke  of  the  Messiah. 
Delitzsch,  in  loc,  may  be  taken  as  an  example.  He  expresses, 
however,  the  difficulty  of  the  undertaking,  when  he  says :  "And 
yet  this  Psalm  has  less  of  a  Ilessianio  appear^ance  than  almost 
any ;  nor  has  it,  so  far  as  we  know,  ever  been  recognized  as  a 
Messianic  Psalm,  in  the  synagogue."  The  Psalm  is  no  more 
Messianic  than  it  appears.  The  Apostle  no  more  treats  it  as 
such  than  does  the  synagogue. 

It  is  important  to  notice  that  the  Psalmist,  consistently  with 
the  account  of  the  original  creation  (Gen.  i.  26-30),  refers  the  : 
making-  a  little  lower  than  angels,  and  the :  crowning  with  glory 
and  honor  to  the  same  divine  transaction.  When  the  former  was 
done,  so  was  the  latter.  When  man  was  created,  immediately 
all  was  subjected  to  him,  as  to  one  created  for  such  dominion, 
and  thus  he  was  crowned  with  glory  and  honor. 

The  Author  adds  an  exposition  of  the  scriptural  statement  to 
which  he  has  appealed. 

Ver.  8  b.  For  in  subjecting^  to  Mm  the  all  things,  lie  left  nothing" 
imsubjected  to  him. 

This  exposition,  i.  e.,  the  fact  that  the  Author  is  at  pains  to 
note  precisely  the  scope  of  this  part  of  the  language  quoted,  shows 
that  the  fact  stated  there  is  what  bears  out  his  proposition  in  ver. 
5.  The  For  refers  to  that  statement,  and  by  this  exposition  of 
the  pith  of  the  quotation,  shows  that  it  is   applicable  to  the 

^  Against  Davidson. 


ii.  8  c]      WE   SEE    NOT   YET   ALL   THINGS    SUBJECTED.  47 

present  subject.  By  the  all  things  is  meant  no  more  than  what  is 
described,  Ps.  viii.  6-8,  and  more  fully  still,  Gen.  i.  20-30.  The 
article  (zd  ■Kdvra)  defines  the  aU  things  to  be  those  already 
named.  But  that  comprehends  everything  pertaining  to  the 
present  habitable  world.  The  Author's  exposition  does  not 
mean  to  extend  that  meaning  to  things  not  of  the  habitable 
world.  Least  of  all  does  he  mean  to  intimate  that  angels  them- 
selves  arc  comprehended  in  the  all  things.  His  point  is,  that 
leaving  nothing  unsubjected  to  man,  left  and  leaves  nothing  to  be 
subjected  to  angels.  By  thus  emphasizing  and  insisting  on  the 
scopeof  this:  all  things,  the  Apostle  not  only  breaks  down  the 
assumption  that  all  things  in  this  world  are  subjected  to  angels, 
but  the  assumption  that  anything,  as  regarded  the  original  insti- 
tution, is  so  subjected.  This  prepares  for  the  conclusion,  that 
the  world  to  come  was  not  subjected  to  them.  For  that  world 
must  be  included  in  the :  all  things. 

With  reference  to  this  there  is  added  a  comment : 

Ver.  8  c.  But  now  we  see  not  yet  all  things  subjected  to 
him. 

The :  not  yet  brings  in  the  notion  of  a  future,  implying  that 
then  this  subjection  of  all  things  will  be  realized.  This  resumes 
the  Apostle's  reference  to  "  the  world  to  come."  This  is  the 
world  that  should  afterward  be.  From  this  we  see  that  the 
Apostle  entertains  the  same  expectation  that  is  foretold  in  Isa. 
ft'.  17;  ^d.  22  ;  as  the  same  is  reproduced  in  2  Pet.  iii.  13  ; 
Rev.  xxi.  1.  This  we  do  not  yet  behold,  he  says;  which  is  true 
still  as  it  was  then,  except  (and  the  exception  is  inipoi-taiit)  as 
we  see  things  in  Christ.  But,  he  goes  on  to  say,  we  see  Jesus, 
and  this  antithesis  is  presented  as  if  pointing  to  something  that 
is  the  pledge  and  security  that  we  shall  behold  the  other,  and 
thus,  in  effect,  do  by  faith  behold  now.  The  sentence  that  pre- 
sents this  antithesis  is  so  pregnant,  and  consequently  so  complex, 
that  it  demands  very  exact  scrutiny. 

Ver.  9.  But  we  behold  him  made  a  little  lower  than  angels, 
even  Jesus,  on  account  of  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with 
glory  and  honor,  so  that  by  the  grace  of  God  he  might  taste 
death  for  every  one. 


48  BUT   WE   SEE   JESUS  [ii.  9. 

In  this  sentence  in  the  original,  as  in  this  literal  rendering,  it 
is  only  the  logical  movement  of  the  context  that  will  enable  us 
to  determine  what  is  an  objective  clause  and  what  a  predicate, 
and  what  clause  is  qualified  by :  on  account  of  the  suffering  of 
death. 

However,  it  is  plain  that :  But  is  adversative  of  the  forego- 
ing "  now "  ver.  8  c.  It  has  been  noted  above,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Psalmist  refers  "  making  a  little  lower  than  angels," 
and  "  crowning  with  glory  and  honor,"  and  "  subjecting  all 
things  under  man,"  to  one  transaction.  When  the  one  was 
done,  the  other  was  thereby  done  also.  When,  therefore,  our 
Author  here  points  to  Jesus  with  predicates  of  the  object  expressed 
in  terms  borrowed  from  the  Psalm,  we  must  assume,  that  he 
would  have  them  understood  here,  just  as  they  are  in  the 
Psalm.  ^ 

In  the  Psalm,  made  a  little  lower  than  angels  and  crowned  with 
glory  and  honor  are  both  predicates  of  "  man."  Here,  then,  they 
must  both  be  predicates  of  Jesus.^  Moreover,  they  must  refer  to 
one  divine  act  in  His  case  as  in  the  other ;  so  that  He  too,  when 
made  a  little  lower  than  angels  was  thereby  crowned  with  glory 
and  honor.^  The  latter  expression,  therefore,  does  not  mean  the 
exaltation  of  Christ;*  nor  is  the  former  intended  to  express  the 
idea  of  the  humiliation  of  Christ.*  Taken  as  co-ordinate  expres- 
sions of  the  same  divine  act  toward  Christ,  they  mutually  exclude 
these  meanings,  as  they  can  neither  both  refer  to  Christ's  exaltation, 
nor  both  to  His  humiliation.  Neither  of  these  notions  is  presented 
here.  The  Author  only  means  to  point  to  Jesus  as  a  man,  made 
like  men.  Hence,  likely,  he  names  Him  by  His  human  name, 
Jesus,  instead  of  by  one  of  the  three  names  already  used,  viz., 
"Son,"  "the  First-begotten,"  "Lord."  And  it  corroborates  this 
view  of  his  meaning,  that,  in  the  context  immediately  following 
(ver.  10-18),  the  Author  amplifies  this  thought  of  the  Son  of  God, 
made  like  men,  and  in  so  doing,  mentions  only  what  relates  to 

^  von.  Hof. 

*  Against  Liin.,  and  others,  who  make  the  former  objective  in  apposition  with 
Jesus  and  the  latter  predicate. 

'  Comp.  Matt,  xxviii.  18.  *  Against  Davidson,  etc. 

*  With  von  Hof.,  against  most  commentators. 


ii.  9.]  MADE    LOWER    THAN    ANGELS.  49 

His  human  life  on  earth.  In  this  connection,  it  must  be  noticed 
again,  as  at  i.  3,  that  the  Apostle's  discourse  does  not  bring  for- 
ward at  all  the  notion  of  humiliation.^  It  is  true  that  matters 
are  mentioned  that  may  be  referred  to  that  head.  But  the 
Apostle  is  not  discoursing  of  that  head.  He  is  still  exalting  the 
Son  as  the  agent  of  the  present  revelation.  Thus,  when  point- 
ing to  Him  as  made  man,  he  describes  Him,  in  those  scriptural 
terms,  that  are  the  most  glorious  description  of  man  ;  as  the  only 
man  that  realizes  the  description. 

To  Jesus,  then,  the  Apostle  points  as  realizing  the  original 
decree  that  subjected  the  world  to  man ;  or,  rather  as  come  to 
realize  ivhat  has  "  not  yet "  been  done  completely.  For  he  is 
speaking  of  the  mission  of  "  the  Son,  who  was  made  heir  of  all 
things."  That  Son,  coming  in  that  quality  as  man,  and  with  a 
name  so  much  more  excellent  than  that  of  the  angels,  is,  ipso 
facto,  crowned  with  the  glory  and  honor  that  is  the  equivalent 
of  having  all  things  subjected  to  Him.^  By  saying,  ver.  8  c, 
"  we  see  now  not  yet  all  things  subjected  to  Him,"  the  Apostle 
implies  that  something  has  been  subjected  to  man ;  viz.,  the 
dominion  described  in  the  omitted  ver.  6  a,  of  Ps.  viii. ;  but  sub- 
jecting all  is  not  completely  done.  On  the  contrary,  man  is  him- 
self under  the  fear  of  death  (vers.  14,  15),  with  all  involved  in 
that.  The  suffering  of  death  expresses  more  than  mere  dying. 
Deliverance  from  that  will  bring  about  the  complete  accomplish- 
ment of  subjecting  all  things  to  man,  i.  e.,  will  complete  his 
crowning  with  glory  and  honor ;  in  other  words,  bring  in  "  the 
world  to  come  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks "  (ver.  5).  It  is 
the  future  completion  of  this  subjecting  to  which  the  not  yet 
points. 

It  is  because  he  is  so  speaking  that  the  Apostle  weaves  into 
our  present  sentence  the  clauses  :  on  account  of  the  suffering  of 
death,  and :  that  he  might  taste  death  for  every  one.  They  express 
in  respect  to  what  and  hmc  Jesus  effects  that  complete  subjection 
and  brings  in  the  world  to  come,  viz.,  in  respect  to  the  suffering 
of  death,  as  the  bar  to  having  that  glory  ;  and  in  respect  to  his 
tasting  death  for  everyone,  as  the  means  of  effecting  that  glory. 

'  Against  e.  y.  Angus.  ^  Comp.  Matt,  xxviii.  18  ;  xi.  27  ;  John  xiii.  3. 

4 


50  TO   SUFFEB    DRA.TH  [ii.  9. 

Thus,  as  the  reference  of  "  for  "  in  ver.  5  proposes,  the  Author 
shows  how  there  comes  to  be  a  salvation  from  the  word  spoken 
by  angels,  by  showing  that  there  is  a  world  to  come  and  always 
was  from  the  original  creation,  and  that  this  world  was  not  sub- 
jected to  angels,  but  to  men,  and  that  it  is  Jesus  who  is  to  effect 
that  complete  subjection,  which  He  does  by  a  deliverance  from 
death,  and  by  expiation  of  sins. 

As  to  the  much-debated  question,  whether :  on  account  of  the 
suffering  of  death  belongs  to  :  made  a  little  lower  than  angels, 
or  to  :  crowned  with  glory  and  honor, '  there  appears  no  suffi- 
cient reason  why  it  does  not  equally  belong  to  both ;  see- 
ing both,  as  explained  above,  are  a  double  description 
of  the  same  thing,  viz.,  of  the  Son  becoming  mau.^  He 
became  man,  but  such  a  crowning  perfection  of  humanity, 
on  account  of  the  suffering  of  death.  This  suffering  of  death 
refers  to  the  common  lot  of  humanity,  which,  as  the  great  bar 
to  having  all  things  subject  to  man,  or  rather  as  the  nullification 
of  the  decree  to  that  effect,  calls  for  a  remedy.  As  has  been  said 
already,  the  suffering  of  death  does  not  mean  simply  dying,  i.e., 
simply  the  separation  of  soul  and  body.  But,  including  that,  it 
signifies  an  extended  experience,  of  which  man  is  the  passive  sub- 
ject ;  as  by  "  the  sufferings  of  sins  "  (viz.,  "  when  we  were  in  the 
flesh  "),  E,om.  vii.  5,  is  signified  an  extended  experience  continu- 
ing as  long  as  the  condition  lasts  that  is  expressed  by  :  "  being 
in  the  flesh."  In  Gal.  v.  24,  Paul  calls  the  same  thing  "  the 
sufferings  of  the  flesh,"  ^  Another  expression  for :  the  suffering 
of  death  is  :  "  the  pangs  of  death,"  Acts  ii.  24,  where  it  is  evi- 

^  See  the  representation  of  this  debate  in  Stuart ;  and  the  array  of  authori- 
ties on  either  side,  which  are  equally  balanced,  in  LUn.,  Alford. 

^  For  the  connection  of  Sia  to  nd-^Tj/ia  k.  t.  A.  with  eaTEcpavu/ihov,  one  cannot 
urge  the  position  of  the  clause,  as  appears  by  comparison  of  vii.  18 ;  nor  the 
force  of  Sid,  as  appears  from  the  same  passage,  and  also  from  Eora.  iv.  25 ;  nor 
the  relevancy  of  the  notions  so  connected,  as  also  appears  from  Kom.  iv.  25. 

'  It  is  interesting,  and  reflects  light  on  the  topic  of  our  text,  to  notice  how 
in  Eom.  vii.  4-6,  Paul  treats  the  subject  of  sin  as  the  barrier  to  the  free  life- 
service  of  righteousness  and  of  fruitfulness  to  God,  much  as  our  Author  here 
treats  death  (vers.  9,  10,  14,  15),  and  sins  (ver.  17),  as  the  barriers  to  that  glory 
and  honor  to  which  God  predestined  His  sons. 


ii.  9.]     FOR  EVERY  ONE,  BY  THE  GRACE  OF  GOD.       51 

dent,  from  the  reference  to  Ps.  xvi.  10,  that  death  is  meant  in  a 
local  sense,  as  Hades,  or  the  state  of  the  dead.  Peter  says  of  it, 
that  Jesus  "  could  not  be  holden  of  it."  And  Ps.  xvi.,  which  is 
unsurpassed  by  any  Old  Testament  passage,  in  respect  to  its  con- 
fident anticipation  of  eternal  glory,  represents  Hades  as  an  inter- 
mediate state  that  is  a  temporal  bar  to  the  realization  of  that 
glory  that  is  the  anticipation  of  "the  saints  that  are  in  the 
earth,"  v.  3.  But  in  the  confidence  of  that  inspiration  that  dic- 
tated this  Psalm,  the  Psalmist  looks  to  be  rescued  from  that 
state,  and  exclaims  :  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades," 
V.  10.  "  Therefore,"  he  says,  moreover :  "  My  heart  is  glad 
and  my  glory  (ni:]:?)  rejoiceth ;  my  flesh  also  shall  rest  in  hope," 
V.  9.  Yet,  though,  with  the  spirit  of  a  seer,  an  Old  Testament 
saint  could  look  beyond  the  grave,  and  triumph  in  this  fashion, 
it  was  very  different  when  contemplating  directly  death  and 
Hades.  Then  the  Psalmist  exclaimed  :  "  O  Lord,  deliver  my 
soul ;  oh  save  me  for  Thy  mercies  sake.  For  in  death  there  is 
no  remembrance  of  Thee ;  in  Hades  who  shall  give  Thee  thanks." 
(Ps.  vi.  4,  5;  comp.  Isa.  xxxviii.  11,  18.)  The  suffering,  or 
the  sufferings  (our  ver.  10)  experienced  in  this  condition,  from 
which  "  the  saints  in  the  earth  "  sighed  and  prayed  to  be  deliv- 
ered, even  in  anticipation  of  them,  loere  the  suffering  of  death 
referred  to  in  our  verse,  as  nullifying  the  destiny  to  glory  and 
honor  proper  to  man.  They  were  the  bar  to  all  things  being 
subjected  to  Him.  On  account  of  this  suffering  of  death  Jesus, 
too,  M-as,  like  the  sons  of  God  that  He  would  lead  to  glory,  made 
a  little  lower  than  angels  and  crowned  with  glory  and  honor, 
that  He  might  taste  death  for  every  one.  We  say  these  were  the 
sufferings ;  for  as  will  appear,  the  Author  represents  that  they 
were  ended  by  what  Jesus  suffered  and  did. 

The  statement  that  Christ  became  man  on  account  of  the  suf- 
fering of  death  does  not  express  what  He  was  to  do  as  a  man  on 
that  account.  This  the  Apostle  explains  by  adding :  That  he 
might  taste  death  for  every  one.  By  His  dying  men  may  be  deliv- 
ered from  death  (comp.  ver.  1 5),  and  so  the  last  bar  to  complete 
subjection  of  all  things  was  to  be  removed.  To  tliis  he  adds, 
that  this  death  and  this  purpose  of  Jesus'  dying  was  by  the  grace 


52  THE   DIVINE   TzpiTzov.  [ii.  10. 

of  God.^  This  statement,  especially  by  the  emphatic  position  of 
the  words  in  this  very  emphatic  clause,  implies  the  denial  of  the 
opposite,  viz.,  a  death  by  the  wrath  of  God.^  Such  was  the  death 
to  which  men  were  subjected,  and  of  which  they  lived  in  constant 
dread  (vers.  14,  15).  It  is,  therefore,  as  very  important, 
emphatically  affirmed  that  Christ's  death  was  the  reverse  of  this ; 
that  it  was  by  the  grace  of  God.  Only  such  a  death  could  be  for 
the  benefit  of  those  that  were  otherwise  subject  to  death.  This 
word  :  grace,  refers  not  to  Christ  who  died,  but  to  men  for  whom 
He  died.  It  has  its  full  New  Testament  sense  of :  "  favor  to  the 
undeserving." 

This  statement,  that  Christ  came  to  die  so,  and  for  such  an 
object,  is  the  emphatic  statement  of  the  verse,  and  the  climax  of 
the  passage  beginning  with  For,  ver.  5.  It  displays  the  Sou  as 
having  "  the  world  to  come  "  subjected  to  Him,  and  not  to  angels ; 
that  even  His  death  had  no  relation  to  the  word  spoken  by  them, 
as  if  He  died,  in  consequence  of  that,  as  other  men  died ;  and  so 
He  can  bring  in  a  salvation  and  redeem  those  that  were  to  be  the 
inhabitants  of  the  world  to  come. 

The  statement  that  Christ's  coming  Avas  with  the  intent  to 
taste  death  for  every  one,  must  not  be  pressed  to  mean  that  He 
comprehended  every  man  individually  or  all  men  universally  in 
the  intended  benefit.  The  Author  presents  the  truth  in  its  gen- 
eral aspect  with  reference  to  the  completeness  of  the  deliverance, 
and  not  with  reference  to  distinctions  that  must  be  made  when 
the  truth  is  applied  to  particulars,  i.  e.,  to  the  subjects  delivered.^ 

Ver.  10.  For  it  became  him,  on  account  of  whom  are  the 
aU  things  and  through  whom  are  the  all  things,  when  he  brought 
many  sons  to  glory,  to  make  perfect  the  captain  of  their  salvation 
through  sufferings. 

The  For  of  this  statement  refers  to  the  foregoing  words  :  "  by 
the  grace  of  God."  Having  by  that  expression  pointed  to  God's 
participation  in  the  matter  of  Christ's  death  as  explained  above, 

^  On  the  reading  jwp'?  see  Alford,  Del.  ^  So  von  Hof. 

*  Before  passing  from  this  remarkable  sentence  of  ver.  9,  it  may  be  noted  that 
its  complex  and  difficult  construction  affords  some  evidence  of  its  having  Paul 
for  Author.  It  reminds  one  of  sentences  in  Eomans  and  Galatians,  with 
which  one  has  wrestled. 


ii.  10.]  THOUGH   CAUSE   OF   THE   ALL   THINGS  53 

the  Apostle  gives  a  reason  for  it.  The  reason  relates  not  merely 
to  the  divine  intei*vention,  but  to  the  grace  which  was  its  special 
characteristic.  For  brings  in  this  reason.  This  reason  he  refers 
to  God  Himself,  and  to  what  became  him,  or  was  befitting  God. 
In  stating  this,  the  Apostle  repeats,  in  modified  expressions,  the 
thing  that  so  finds  its  explanation  in  God's  own  character.  It  is 
two-fold ;  (a)  the  thing  done,  viz.,  bringing  sons  to  glory,  and  (6) 
the  way  of  doing  this,  viz.,  by  the  death  of  His  Son,  the  special 
aim  being  to  explain  this  latter  (6).  It  is  obvious  that  these  bare 
notions  are  common,  both  to  our  verse  and  to  the  foregoing  context 
(vers.  7—9).  For  nothing  justifies  us  in  understanding  glory  here 
to  mean  anything  else  than  it  does  in  verses  7,  9,  and  in  its  origi- 
nal place  in  Psa.  viii.  As  we  have  seen,  it  describes  the  condi- 
tion of  one  to  whom  all  things  are  subjected.  Moreover,  we  are 
equally  constrained  to  understand  the  all  things  in  our  verse  as 
meaning  the  same  as  "  all  things,"  verse  8.  The  article  {jd  Travr^)^ 
as  in  ver.  8  6,  only  defines  the  all  things  as  the  same  as  that 
already  named.^ 

In  having  the  all  things  subjected  to  him,  man,  according  to 
his  original  destiny,  was  crowned  with  glory.  Such  has  been  the 
representation  preceding  our  verse,  with  the  comment  that :  "  now 
we  see  not  yet  the  all  things  subjected  to  him."  In  our  vcr.  10 
the  expressions :  on  account  of  whom  are  the  all  things,  and 
by  whom  are  the  all  things,  are  not  to  be  taken  as  merely  a  cir- 
cumlocution for  God.^  This  circumlocution  is  breviloquence 
that  states  how  God  is  related  to  the  all  things  so  intimately  con- 
cerned with  man's  glory.  And  this  representation  is  not  added 
to:  him  =  "God,"  in  order  to  justify  and  illustrate  the  use  of 
sTzpene,  it  became.^  For  er.peTts  needs  nothing  to  set  it  in  a 
proper  light,  seeing  it  describes  what  God  does  as  something  in- 
wardly befitting  Him.*  It  describes  the  suffering  and  death  of 
Jesus  as  something  that  God  could  not  permit  not  to  happen,  if 
He  would  save  meu.^     By  adding  the  phrases  we  are  considering, 

1  Comp.  i.  2,  3.  *  As  Calvin,  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford. 

^Agninst  Liin.,  Del.,  von  Hof.  formerly  iu  his  Weissagg  u.  ErfiUlg.;  re- 
tracted in  his  C'omm. 

'  von  Hof.  "  ^o"  Ilof- 


54  THAT   CONSTITUTE   MAN's   GLORY  [ii.  10. 

the  Apostle  expresses  the  absohite  sovereignty  of  God  in  rela- 
tion to  the  all  things  that  would  constitute  the  glory  of  men.^ 
And  he  means  to  state,  that,  sovereign  as  He  is,  the  only  way  for 
God  now  (8  c)  to  secure  the  glory  to  men  was  through  the 
suffering  and  death  of  the  Son.^  And,  in  accordance  with  this, 
the  achievement  of  this  glory  is  now  described  as  a  leading  to 
glory. 

Instead  of  the  expression  :  "  crowning  man  with  glory,"  the 
Apostle  speaks  here  of  leading  many  sons  to  glory ;  and  instead 
of  saying,  Jesus  died,  he  speaks  of  His  being  perfected  through 
suffering.  Moreover,  the  expressions  being  in  the  aorist,  indi- 
rectly affirm  that  God  led  many  sons  to  glory  and  that  he  perfected 
Jesus,  whom  the  Apostle  now  designates  :  the  captain  of  their 
salvation. 

In  salvation  we  have  the  correlative  of  glory.  Salvation 
achieves  the  glory.  This  coincidence  of  the  notions,  salvation 
and  glory,  (viz.,  the  glory  of  Ps.  viii.,  "crowned  with  glory,")  is 
represented  by  Isa.  xi.  1-9 ;  Ixv.  17-29.  This  reference  is 
enough  to  justify  our  understanding  the  Apostle  to  use  the  two 
words  synonymously  in  the  way  just  explained.  And  we  have 
in  this,  another  explanation  why  the  Apostle  now  speaks  of 
leading  to  glory.  Calling  Jesus,  the  captain  of  their  salvation, 
we  may  suppose,  is  suggested  as  the  fitting  expression  here, 
because  of  that  light  in  which  He  is  put  in  ver.  9,  where  Jesus, 
and  He  alone,  is  represented  as  realizing  the  description  of  man 
crowned  with  glory  and  honor  by  reason  of  having  all  things 
subjected  to  Him,  and,  as  such,  dying  for  the  benefit  of  every 
one;  but  especially  because  of  that  deliverj'^  {arraXXd^rj,  ver.  15), 
which  was  a  leading  forth  from  the  power  of  death  (ver.  14). 
This  fitness  appears  further  when  we  notice  that  at  v.  9,  he  is 
called  the  "  cause "  or  "  author  of  salvation  to  them  that  obey 
him."     He  that  has  obedience  is  a  captain. 

The  temporal  reference  of  the  clauses  :  who  led  {ayaydvra^  lead- 
ing, in  the  past ;  aorist  participle),  many  sons  to  glory  and  to 
make  perfect  (in  the  past;  aorist  infin.),  etc.,  represents  the 
leading  to  glory  and  perfecting,  as  things  done  in  the  past.     The 

^  Comp.  Eom.  xi.  36 ;  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  ^  Comp.  on  v.  7. 


ii.  10.]  MUST    LEAD    SONS    TO    GLORY  55 

subject  of  both  verbal  notions  is  God.  The  past  referred  to 
must  be  the  same  in  both  cases ;  when  the  one  was  done  the 
other  was  also.  The  reference  of  perfecting  is  obviously  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  or  rather  to  what  was  ellected  by  His  death  and 
its  attending  sufferings.  The  death  that  perfected  Christ  was 
the  means  by  which  the  sons  were  led  to  glory.  This  represen- 
tation is  likely  to  impress  most  readers  strangely.  But  it  is 
consistent  with  the  Author's  usual  way  of  representing  the  effects 
of  the  death  of  Christ.  Thus,  at  x.  14,  he  says,  referring  to  this 
death :  "  For  by  one  offering,  He  hath  perfected  forever  them 
that  are  sanctified."  (Comp.  x.  10.)  Similarly,  at  v.  9,  "Having 
been  made  perfect,  He  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation, 
unto  all  them  that  obey  Him."  Thus,  there  are  effects  of  Christ's 
suffering  and  death  that  were  accomplished  when  He  Himself 
was  perfected.  The  sanctification  of  all  believers  was  such  an 
effect.  Leading  them  to  glory  was  another.  One  was  true  as  a 
past  transaction,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  other.  The  following 
verse  (11),  shows  that  glory  and  "sanctification"  refer  to  the 
same  thing,  or  rather  are  concomitants  of  one  transaction.  How 
it  was  true,  may  be  left  for  fuller  consideration,  when  the  pro- 
gress of  this  epistle  shall  have  made  us  more  familiar  with  the 
Author's  way  of  representing  the  gospel.  (Comp.  below  at  vers. 
14,  15  ;  V.  9  ;  x.  14.)  For  the  present  we  may  briefly  note,  that 
it  w^as  true  in  the  sense  that,  on  God's  part  and  the  Son's  part, 
all  was  completely  done  that  was  to  be  done  for  axjcomplishing 
these  results. 

We  need  not,  therefore,  take  the  expressions  in  any  other  than 
their  simple  grammatical  significance.^ 

'>■  A  few  samples  of  tlie  constructions  to  which  commentators  hare  resorted, 
in  order  to  reach  a  plain  meaning  {i.  e.,  one  less  strange  than  that  affi)rded  by 
the  simple  grammatical  construction),  may  serve  to  increase  the  satisfaction 
with  that  given  above.  "  As  one  that  led  many  sons  to  glory ;  "  making  the 
ayaySvTa  in  apposition  with  rhv  dpxv7^'V  (Ebrard).  "After  he  (i.  c,  the  Cap- 
tain of  their  salvation)  liad  led  many  sons  to  glory"  ("Winer,  Gram.,  p.  343). 
"As  He  would  lead"  (Bleek,  ct  al).  "AVIien,  or  as  He  was  leading,"  (Lun., 
Del.).  "  By  leading  ...  He  perfected  "  (Moll,  quoting  and  agreeing  with 
Tholuck).  "Having  led  many  sons,"  etc.  (von.  Ilof.),  who  also  understands 
Old  Testament  saints  to  be  meant,  but  finds  an  antithesis  between  "glory" 


56  BY   A   CAPTAIN   OF   SALVATION.  [ii.  10. 

The  Author,  as  we  have  noted,  exchanges  here  the  expression 
"  man  "  (ver.  6),  which  was  continued  in  vers.  6  6-8  by  the 
pronoun  {Him,  His),  for  many  sons,  because  leading  to  glory  may 
not  be  predicated  in  the  universal  way  that  was  proper  in  the 
original  decree  (Ps.  viii. ;  Gen.  i.)  It  was  only  sons  that  God 
led  to  glory  by  His  Son.  At  the  same  time  he  says  many  sons, 
to  denote  that  they  were  a  multitude.  It  is  possible,  even,  that 
he  may  say,  many  sons  in  distinction  from  all  the  sons  that 
are  eventually  to  be  led  to  gloiy.  For  he  may  have  particularly 
in  mind  such  as  are  described  ver.  15,  which,  as  the  expression  : 
were  all  their  life-time  subject  to  bondage,  shows,  describes  those 
whose  experiences  of  the  sort  named  were  of  the  past,  and  thus 
denotes  saints  of  the  past.  Such  wer^e  delivered  from  the  power 
of  death,  by  what  Jesus  did  "tlirough  death  "(v.  14).  Many 
sons  were  then  led  to  glory  by  Jesus.  Of  the  rest,  all  are  led  to 
glory  "  who  obey  him,"  v.  9,  who  was  then  perfected  as  a  Saviour 
through  sufferings. 

In  saying  that  the  Son  was  perfected  through  sufferings,  the 
Apostle  obviously  refers  to  the  mention  of  suffering  in  ver  9. 
The  meaning  is,  that  Christ  died,  and  through  death,  attained  the 
perfection  so  called.^  By  resorting  to  this  expression,  he  inter- 
prets for  us  the  reference  to  "  the  suffering  of  death  "  of  ver.  9. 
As  stated  above,  those  sufferings  were  the  bar  to  men  coming  to 
the  glory  celebrated  in  Ps.  viii. ;  or  rather  were  the  nullification 
of  that  glory.  On  account  of  those  sufferings  the  Son  was  made 
man  ;  to  lead  men  to  glory  He  must  deliver  from  those  suffer- 
ings;''to  deliver  others  He  must  suffer  Himself."^  Having 
passed  through  the  suffering.  He  was  perfected.  As  He  suffered 
"  by  the  grace  of  God,"  (ver.  9),  God  was  the  one  that  perfected 
Him,  and  God  did  this  "  by  grace,"  i.  e.,  through  favor  to  men 
exposed  to  the  sufferings  of  death. 

By  perfected  is  not  meant  completeness  of  moral  character,  as 

and  "  sufferings ; "  e.  ^.,  while  an  Aaron  was  led  to  the  high-priesthood,  and 
so  attained  his  glory,  Christ  was  led  through  suffering  to  reach  Ats  glory- 
perfection. 

'  Corap.  Luke  xiii. 32,  "The  third  day  I  am  perfected." 
^  Conip.  Matt,  xxvii.  42. 


ii.  10.]   PERFECTED  AS  SUCH  THROUGH  SUFFERING.       57 

is  very  commonly  represented  in  tlie  homiletical  use  of  this  text. 
That  notion  is  at  variance  with  all  that  the  preceding  context 
represents  concerning  Christ,  who,  to  be  "  a  Son  of  God,"  and 
"  effulgence  of  the  glory  "  of  God,  and  "  stamp  of  His  substance," 
must  have  had  moral  completeness,  if  any  thing.  It  is  therefore 
a  perversion  of  the  truth  expressed  in  this  scripture  to  teach  from 
it  as  if  from  the  example  of  Christ,  that  Chiistian  character, 
viz.  moral  perfection,  is  to  be  attained  through  suflterings.  Not 
only  does  our  text  not  say  that  Christ  was  made  morally  perfect 
by  suffering,  but  our  Author  says  that  believers  are  perfected  by 
the  offering  that  Christ  made  in  His  death,  and  by  that  way 
alone.^  Moreover,  it  was  not  all  sufferings,  that,  according  to 
our  Author,  made  Christ  perfect,  but  the  sufferings  involved  in 
death.  It  were  absurd  in  His  case  to  suppose  that  He  was  first 
a  morally  complete  man,  when  He  had  died,  and  not  till  then. 
It  were  still  more  absurd  to  represent  that  believers  become 
morally  complete  by  means  of  that  suffering  that  ends  their  life. 

Neither  does  perfected  mean  that  Christ  was  exalted  to  heavenly 
glory ,^  for  the  reasons  given  above  (ver.  9),  that  show  how 
"  glory  and  honor  "  refer  to  something  else. 

It  must  mean  the  same  as  at  v.  9,  where  it  is  said  Christ  was 
perfected,  and  that,  not  by  the  agony  of  soul  He  suffered  in  view 
of  death,  but  by  the  act  of  dying  itself.  Having  died,  He  was 
perfected,  and  His  perfection  fitted  Him  to  "  become  the  cause  of 
everlasting  salvation  to  those  that  obey  Him,"  and  He  so  became. 
His  perfection  was  that  fitness,  and  being  perfected,  He  reached 
the  goal  of  His  earthly  destiny,^  which  was  to  save  sinners.* 
Similarly,  in  our  text :  when  God  perfected  Jesus,  it  was  as  Cap- 
tain of  salvation  for  the  sous  whom  He  led  to  glory.  By  His 
undergoing  the  sufferings  of  death,  Jesus  was  so  perfected. 
Without  dying  He  could  not  be  such  a  Captain  of  salvation. 

An  emphatic  thought  of  the  present  verse  (10)  is,  that  what  is 
described  as  done  is  affirmed  to  be  what  befitted  God.  This  is 
truly  a  remarkable  saying  that  has  few  ])arallels  in  scripture. 

1  X.  14.  ^  Against  Alford,  Lindsay,  Liin.,  etc. 

'  So  von  Hof. ;  corap.  Davidson,  p.  65. 
*Comp.  Luke  xiii.  32;  John  iv.  34. 


58  THE   SANCTIFIER   AND   THE   SANCTIFED         [ii.  11  «. 

What  was  done  by  Christ  to  save  men  is  referred  to  something 
in  God  Himself,  as  its  ultimate  reason.  The  question  arises, 
naturally:  Why  was  this,  and  just  tliis, befitting  God.  The  follow- 
ing verse  answers  this  question/  and  for  introduces  the  reason. 

Ver.  1 1  a.  For  both  he  that  sanctifies  and  they  that  are  sanc- 
tified are  all  of  one. 

The  subjects  of  the  foregoing  verse,  viz.,  "  sons  led  to  glory," 
and  "  Captaiu  of  salvation,"  are  resumed  here  under  different 
desio-nations.  The  latter  is  called  :  he  that  sanctifies ;  the  former : 
they  that  are  sanctified.  Or  rather,  the  sanctifier  and  the  sanctified ; 
for  the  present  participles  are  used  substantively,^  designating  the 
parties  named  according  to  their  relative  positions.  This  is  a 
species  of  breviloquence  that  implies  the  affirmation,  that  it  is  by 
being  sanctified  that  sons  are  led  to  glory,  and  that  He  that  leads 
them  to  glory  does  it  by  Himself  sanctifying  them.  And  this, 
in  part,  answers  the  question  prompted  above,  viz.,Why  was  such 
a  way  of  leading  sons  to  glory  something  befitting  God  ?  Though 
God  was  sovereign  of  "  the  all  things,"  whose  subjection  to  man 
would  crown  him  with  glory  and  honor,  yet  could  He  not  lead 
man  to  glory  without  sanctifying  him.  And  sanctify  has  here 
its  usual  meaning  of  setting  something  into  a  state  opposite  to 
that  of  common  {xoi'Mt-J),  i.  e.,  into  a  state  befitting  the  nature  of 
God,^  to  be  for  God's  service. 

The  complete  reply  to  the  question  is  in  the  affirmation,  that 
the  sanctifier  and  the  sanctified  are  all  of  one.  The  word  aU 
(TtdvTs?),  combined  as  it  is  with  the  emphatic  conjunctive  form 
both-and  (ri-xat ),  has  a  special  emphasis,^  which  we  may  render 
by  all  of  them ;  and  pointedly  comprehends  both  parties  in  what 
is  affirmed.  It  emphasizes  especially,  that  what  is  affirmed  is  true 
of  the  sanctified,  of  whom  it  might  not  be  thought,  as  well  as  of 
the  Sanctifier,  of  whom  it  was  obviously  true.  What  is  affirmed 
is  that  they  are  all  of  one.  This  one  (ivdi)  is  not  to  be  taken  as 
neuter  gender,^  =  "  one  nature,"  for  nothing  in  the  context  sug- 
gests the  supplement  of  "■  nature  "  or  any  kindred  generic  sub- 

1  Against  Liin.  ^  Comp.  Winer,  Gram.,  p.  353. 

^  Comp.  Cremer,  Lex.  swi.  voc,  and  Heb.  ix.  13.  *  Liin. 

^  Against  Calvin. 


ii.  11  b.]  ALL   OF   ONE   DmNE   FATHER.  59 

stantive ;  nor  can  the  proposition  '/.  of  itself,  liave  such  force/ 
but  denotes  origin,  source ;-  not  kind  or  quahty.  It  must  be 
taken  as  masculine.  Taking  it  so,  many  understand  the  :  one  to 
mean  Adam  ;^  others  again  to  mean  Abraham,*  appealing  to  ver. 
16.  But  the  meaning  is  clearly  determined  for  us  by  the 
expression  "many  sous,"  in  ver.  10,  and  the  fact  that  our  expres- 
sion :  the  sanctified  is  only  the  same  subject  continued  under 
another  name.  The  Author  by  :  of  one  means  of  God,^  and 
means  to  affirm  of  all  of  them  that  they  are  alike  sons  of  God. 
He  says :  of  one  and  not :  "  of  Him ' '  (^^  aurou),^  because  he  would 
emphasize  the  unity  of  the  two  parties  named.  And  this  presents 
the  reason  why  God  treated  the  one  as  He  did  the  others.  Suf- 
fering attending  death  (v,  8),  and  chastisement  (xii.  6,  7),  are 
the  lot  of  sons  ;  thus,  He  that  was  made  the  Captain  or  leader 
of  many  sons  to  bring  them  to  glory,  was  made  complete  as  such 
by  suffering  what  they  suffered.  Thus,  what  is  affirmed  in  ver. 
10,  as  befitting  God,  or  as  the  divine  -pi-w,  is  proved.^ 

The  force  of  the  For,  that  introduces  our  ver.  11,  does  not 
extend  beyond  the  first  clause  of  this  verse.^  In  a  fashion  that 
Ls  characteristic  of  the  Author,  and  of  which  we  have  had  an 
example  at  i.  4,  there  is  here  a  transition  from  affirming  some- 
thing of  God,  to  affirming  something  of  Jesus;  and  what  follows 
presents  Him  as  the  actor.  But  what  follows  takes  its  departure 
from  the  statement  of  ver.  11  a,  which,  besides  accounting  for 
the  divine  -pi-o;  affirmed  in  ver.  10,  equally  accounts  for  what 
was  true  of  Jesus  Himself.  And  thus,  referring  to  the  statement 
of  ver.  11  a,  the  Author  procec^ls. 

Ver.  1 1  h.  For  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  breth- 
ren, 12,  saying- :  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren.  In  the 
midst  of  the  congregation  will  I  sing  thy  praise.  l?>.  And  again :  I 
will  put  my  trust  in  him.  And  again :  Behold,  I  and  the  children 
which  God  hath  given  me. 

'  With  Davidson  ;  against  Liin.  *  Bleek.  '  von  Hof.         *  Bengel. 

*  Comp.  1  Cor.  viii.  6.      ®  Against  von  Hof.      '  Comp.  Kielim,  p.  365  sqq. 

^Against  the  common  view,  according  to  which  the  force  of  yrp  extends  to 
the  end  of  ver.  11  (Liin.),  or  to  the  end  of  ver,  13  (Alford),  or  to  the  end  of 
ver.  15,  and  with  that  to  the  end  of  ver.  18  (iliehm,  von  Ilof. ). 


60      SCRIPTURE  LANGUAGE  FOR  PAUL'S  THOUGHTS,  [ii.  11  6, 13. 

The  Author  affirms  of  Jesus,  that  lie  is  not  ashamed  to  call 
brethren  those  sanctified;  precisely  as  at  xi.  16,  he  says  that 
"  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God,"  who  desire  a 
heavenly  country.  The  choice  of  expression  is  peculiar,  being 
an  example  of  "  meiosis,"  ^  which  would  convey  precisely  the 
contrary  notion,  viz.,  that  the  Son  of  God  delights  to  call  them 
brethren.  But  expressed  thus,  it  is  intimated,  consistently  with 
all  that  has  been  represented  of  the  Son,  that  His  calling  them 
brethren  is  not  a  matter  of  course,  but  the  exhibition  of  kindly 
affection  and  much  humility,  and  that  there  is  a  great  difference 
between  Him  as  a  Son,  and  the  many  sons ;  He  being  more 
eminent.^  It  is  affirmed  of  the  Son,  that  he  is  not  ashamed, 
etc.,  in  the  present  tense,  which  expresses  that  such  is  His  present 
attitude ;  and  agreeably  to  this  the  Author  represent  Him  as 
noio  speaking  (Xiyw^^)  the  words  that  illustrate  this  attitude. 

The  Author  here  again  uses  Old  Testament  language,  in  the 
same  free  way  to  clothe  his  own  thoughts  that  we  observed  at  i. 
5-13.  We  may  now  understand  him  in  this  way  with  the  more 
assurance,  because  in  vers.  6-8,  we  have  had  an  unmistakable 
example  of  his  appealing  to  the  Old  Testament  for  proof.  As 
said  above,  such  an  example  shows,  that  when  the  Author  makes 
such  an  appeal,  he  will  do  it  as  others  do,  in  no  ambiguous  way. 
It  increases  our  assurance  in  treating  the  present  quotations  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  we  do,  to  notice,  that  now  the  language  is 
as  freely  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Son  as  in  the  previous  case 
it  was  ascribed  to  God.  Moreover,  the  view,  that  he  illustrates 
by  a  dramatic  reisresentation,  agrees  with  the  fact  that  he  intro- 
duces the  Son  as  so  speaking  now,  and  not  as  having  spoken  long 
ago  in  scripture.^  Of  course,  the  fundamental  fact  that  determines 
us  to  this  view  is,  that  here,  as  in  i.  5-13,  it  is  impossible  in  the 
original  Old  Testament  context,  to  interpret  the  language  quoted 
in  the  sense  in  which  our  passage  presents  their  words.  There- 
fore we  reject  the  common  view*  that,  "These  passages  are  here 

^  Comp.  1  Cor.  xi.  22,  ovk.  eTvaivu.  2  Qq  chrys.  ^  Contrast  v.  5,  6. 

*  As  here  again,  the  above  explanation  of  our  passage  is  a  departure  from 
all  precedent,  it  seems  necessary  to  say  something  more  in  its  defense. 

The  same  diiBculties  are  encountered  here  as  at  i.  5-13,  if  we  view  the  pre- 


ii.  11&,  13,]       CHRIST    NOT  ASHAMED  OF  HIS    BRETimEN  61 

regarded  as  directly  prophetic,  expressing,  by  auticipatiou,  the 
relation  of  the  Son  to  those  whom  He  saves,  and  their  com- 
mon relation  to  God."  ^ 

We  are  to  understand,  then,  that  our  Author  here  represents  in 
a  dramatic  manner  the  truth  that  the  Son  is  not  ashamed  to  call 
"  brethren"  those  sanctified.  That  is,  he  represents  this  truth  in 
actions  which  he  portrays  the  Son  as  performing.  For  the  action 
is  more  than  the  words  in  this  representation.    And  what  is  now 

sent  Old  Testament  language  as  scriptural  proof  that  Jesus  was  not  ashamed 
to  call  brethren  those  sanctified.  It  leads  to  explanations  of  tlie  original  con- 
text of  the  language  quoted  that  never  would  have  been  thought  of  otherwise. 
This  statement  is  less  true  of  Ts.  xxii.,  from  the  fact  that  its  ver.  1,  was  quoted 
by  Jesus  upon  the  cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  46),  and  because  its  vers.  7,  8,  16,  17,  18, 
appear  in  the  gospels  as  especially  fulfilled  at  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  (Matt. 
xxvii.  35,  39,  40 ;  Mark  xv.  29  sqq. ;  Luke  xxiii,  35  sqq. ;  John.  xix.  23 ;  xx.  25, 
27).  Yet  of  Ps.  xxii.,  actually  spoken  by  Jesus,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  the 
words  receive  in  His  mouth  a  totally  different  sense  from  what  they  have  in 
their  original  place.  As  von  Ilofmann  says:  "In  the  psalm-prayer  a  suppliant 
implores  rescue  from  the  peril  of  death,  whereas  the  crucified  Jesus  craves 
deliverance  through  death."  There  is  no  recourse,  then,  but  tliat  expressed 
by  von  Ilofmann:  ""VVe  yield  the  point,  that  the  Psalm  is  altogether  and  sim- 
ply a  monument  of  some  passage  in  David's  life."  When  he  adds :  "  Put 
because  of  David's  place  in  redemptive  historj^,  it  was  fitted  to  be  read  as  tlie 
Old  Testament  expression  of  that,  wherein  the  New  Testament  King  of  God's 
people  was  the  counterpart  of  the  Old  Testament  King,"  he  introduces  a 
notion  that  could  not  have  occurred  to  the  original  readers  of  this  epistle  with 
reference  to  the  present  Davidic  language,  as  pointing  its  signilicanee.  "That 
conception  of  prophecy  which  we  express  by  the  term  'typical'  does  not  seem 
anywhere  entertained  in  the  Epistle."  (Davidson.)  Moreover,  were  tliis  tlie 
way  of  detecting  the  significance  of  the  first  quotation,  it  must  be  also  of  the 
two  that  follow.  Yet  the  second  quotation  :  I  will  put  my  trust  in  him,  may 
be  from  one  of  four  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  (see  below),  and  it  ( aimot 
positively  be  determined  which,  and  views  are  chiefly  divided  between  its 
being  language  of  David  (2  Sam.  xxii.  3),  or  of  Isaiah  (viii.l7).  By  not  explic- 
itly naming  the  source  of  his  quotation,  our  Author  has  left  us  without  a 
clue  to  its  significance  by  which  to  interpret  it  according  to  the  above  view  of 
von.  Ilofmann;  in  other  words,  we  cannot  tell  "what  is  the  Old  Testament 
counterpart  of  this  New  Testament  expression,"  i".  e.,  whether  Jesus  speaks  as 
King,  or  Prophet. 

The  first  of  our  quotations  (ver.  12),  is  from  Ps.  xxii.  22.  It  is  from  the  LXX., 
except  that  instead  of  i^tTjyi/an^iaL  we  have  a-:vayye7.ij.  This,  Delitzseh  says,  is 
because  the  Author  quoted  from  memory.     Von  Ilofmann  says  ;  "  because  it 

'  Davidson. 


62  WHEN  VIEWING   THEM    FROM    HEAVEN,     [li.  11  b,  13. 

represented  has  such  close  analogy  to  actual  language  of  the 
Saviour,  that  it  is  far  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  language 
to  be  the  Apostle's  authority  for  what  he  says,  than  the  Old  Tes- 
tament passages  that  he  seems  to  quote  for  proof. 

First,  in  language  drawn  from  Ps.  xxii.  22,  he  represents  the 
Son  as  starting  on  His  mission  in  which  He  was  to  speak  for  God 
to  men.  Doing  this  he  says  :  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my 
brethren ;  in  the  midst  of  the  congregation  will  I  sing  thy  praise, 
better  suits  the  object  to  hvojid  cov"  (wliicli,  if  so,  shows  that  the  Author  was 
familiar  with  the  original  and  translated  '^■q'O  M^iiDX  for  himself.  Comp.  Ps. 
Ixxviii.  (Ixxvii.)  6.  This  is  likely  enough).  The  words  are  the  Psalmist's, 
and  affirm  what  he  will  do  in  consequence  of  the  hoped  for  deliverance,  pre- 
cisely as  in  Ps.  li.  12,  13:  "Eestore  unto  me  the  joys  of  thy  salvation  .... 
Then  will  I  teach  transgressors  thy  way."  Such  being  the  case,  the  question 
arises:  How  are  they  quoted  as  the  words  of  Jesus?  Commentators  debate 
whether  David  utters  the  words  prophetically  or  typically.  Von  Hofmann 
maintains  the  latter;  Dclitzsch  both.  But  we  may  ask:  what  evidence  is 
there  of  either?  They  are  quoted  Avithout  comment.  Did,  then,  the  readers 
know  that,  either  typically  or  prophetically,  Christ  was  the  speaker  in  that 
Psalm?  If,  in  ver.  8,  the  Author  pauses  to  make  a  comment,  that  after  all 
expresses  a  self-evident  fact,  how  does  he  omit  a  comment  here  to  show  what  is 
so  obscure,  if  the  common  assumption  be  correct  ? 

The  next  two  quotations  (ver.  13),  if,  as  most  commentators  justly  suppose, 
they  are  from  Isa.  viii.  17,  18,  resemble  what  we  noticed  at  i.  8,  9,  viz.,  a  single 
passage  quoted  as  two.  This  seems  itself  to  show  that  the  Author  does  not 
mean  to  employ  the  language  according  to  its  original  meaning,  but  uses  it 
with  a  meaning  peculiar  to  his  own  context.  But,  according  to  Delitzsch,  the 
nearest  approach  in  the  LXX.  to,  the  phrase :  iyio  iao/uai  TrcTroi^uo  £-'  avTcp,  is 
nETvoL-&o}a  eaofiai  sir'  avru,  which  occurs  only  twice  beside  Isa.  viii.  17.  The 
phrase  is  near  enough  not  to  require  remark.  The  two  other  places  are  2  Sam. 
xxii.  3 ;  Isa.  xii.  2,  and  could  just  as  easily  be  turned  to  account  and  made 
Messianic  by  the  same  process  as  is  applied  to  Ps.  xxii.,  especially  2  Sara,  xxii., 
which  is  a  Psalm  of  David,  and  where,  if  ever,  he  must  have  spoken  as  a  typi- 
cal person  (comp.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  1,  2,  where  he  is  called  Messiah,  or  Anointed). 
Also  Ps.  xviii.  2,  is  supposed  by  some  to  furnish  the  quotation  (Pareus,  Owen  ; 
comp.  Wolff,  T\irner).  But  Delitzsch  chooses  Isa.  viii.  17,  because:  "it  alone 
is  from  a  strictly  INIessianic  passage."  Yet,  as  the  words  are  produced  as  a 
separate  quotation,  it  affords  a  presumption  against  their  being  taken  from  tlie 
same  place  as  the  next  quotation  following.  And  seeing  it  is  by  these  quota- 
tions that  Messianic  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  are  detected,  why  not  take 
the  opportunity  this  furnishes  of  detecting  another?  Surely  the  more  we  have 
of  them  the  better,  for  the  style  of  exegeses  we  are  considering ! 

But  taking  Isa.  viii.  17  as  the  source  of  the  quotation,  ver.  13  a,  then  we  find 
that  the  original  Hebrew  makes  Isaiah  the  speaker.     At  this  point  the  LXX. 


ii.  11  6,  13,]  WHEN    WITH    THEM    OX    EARTH.  63 

ver.  12.  This  recalls  the  language  of  John.  xvii.  25,  26:  "O 
righteous  Father,  the  world  knew  thee  not,  but  I  knew  thee ; 
and  I  have  made  known  unto  them  thy  name,  and  will  make  it 
known,"  The  Author's  way  of  saying  it  is  pointed  by  the  ex- 
pression my  brethren ;  but  the  next  quotation  shows  that  it  is  the 
action  more  than  the  expression  my  brethren,  that  displays  what 
the  Author  means,  for  there  the  expression  is  omitted. 

Second,  he  represents  the  Son  in  the  same  condition  with  those 

very  materially  differs  from  the  Hebrew,  changing  both  the  speaker  and  the 
language  he  uttei-s.  It  is  in  the  LXX.  that  Delitzsch  finds  the  coloring  that 
best  suits  the  interpretation  that  Messiah  or  Immanuel  is  the  real  speaker. 
But  the  fact  just  noted  about  the  LXX.  rather  increases  the  doubt  about  our 
Author's  really  quoting  the  words  as  Scripture  proof  at  all. 

The  third  of  our  quotations  is  evidently  from  Isa.  viii.  18.  But  just  as  evi- 
dently Isaiah  is  the  speaker,  and  the  children  referred  to  are  his  two  sons  with 
the  prophetic  names.  Delitzsch  says:  "The  spirit  of  Jesus  was  already  in 
Isaiah,  and  pointed,  in  the  family  of  Isaiah,  to  the  New  Testament  church  ;" 
and  "  thus  we  have  the  deejaest  typical  relation  to  justify  our  Author  in  taking 
the  words  of  Isaiah  as  the  words  of  Jesus."  But  it  may  be  replied  to  this,  that 
with  such  an  interpretation  we  have  a  mystery  as  profound  as  Melchizedek. 
Our  Author  gives  a  chapter  or  more  to  the  exposition  of  the  typical  signifi- 
cance of  Melchizedek.  How  could  he  expect  his  readers  to  detect  the  typical 
ground  of  his  present  reference  to  Isaiah  without  a  similar  elaboration  ?  Or, 
if  without  comment  they  understand  this  reference  in  the  way  expounded  by 
Delitzsch,  why  does  the  Author  need  to  expound  the  Melchizedek?  We  might 
appeal  also  to  Paul's  reference  to  Ishmael  and  Hagar  (Gal.  iv.)  with  the  same 
inquiry. 

If  we  take  our  present  text,  ver.  13  b,  as  authority  for  such  inter[)retation,  it 
puts  the  Old  Testament  in  a  most  extraordinary  light,  and  makes  it  a  book 
that  we  must  despair  of  understanding.  Its  best  meaning  is  not  its  plain 
meaning,  but  one  that  lies  beyond  the  scope  of  our  vision ;  and  we  cannot  hope 
to  know  what  we  read,  without  an  inspired  interpreter.  We  know  it  only 
here  and  there  by  the  few  inter])retations  that  we  find  in  the  New  Testament. 
This  is  the  sort  of  thing  tliat  drives  one  to  the  false  position  of  Bisliop  Marsh 
respecting  types,  viz.,  that  "  the  only  possible  source  of  information  on  this 
subject," — viz.,  what  are  types, — "is  scrijjture  itself"  (Comp.  Fairl)airn: 
T)'pology  Bk.  I.,  ch.  1.)  For  if  we  take  such  interpretations  (as  those  that  are 
made  on  the  assumption  that  Paul,  in  the  passage  before  us,  and  i.  5-13,  is 
appealing  to  scripture  as  authority  for  what  lie  afiirms)  and  attempt  iu  our 
turn  to  ex])ound  other  scripture  in  the  same  fashion  for  ourselves,  then  the 
business  will  be  monopolized  by  those  that  possess  the  most  imagination. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  interpretation  of  Delitzsch  is  abortive  after  all  its 
labor.  For  it  does  not  reach  a  result  that  makes  Isa.  viii.  18  (our  ver.  13  b) 
any  proof  that  Jesus  calls  the  redeemed  "  His  brethren."    For  the  speaker  still 


64  WHEN    RETURNING   TO    HEAVEN.        [li.  11  h,  13. 

to  whom  He  was  sent,  sustaining,  along  with  them,  the  same  rela- 
tion to  God,  and  saying  :  "I  will  put  my  trust  in  him,"  ver.  13  a, 
(from  Isa.  viii.  17).  The  fitness  of  this  allusion  appears  thus : 
"  Isaiah,  through  whom  Jehovah  spoke,  was  just  as  those  whom 
he  taught,  consigned  to  live  in  hope  that  God  would  fulfill  what 
He  had  promised  through  himself,  and,  putting  his  trust  in  God, 
to  await  the  time  when  He  would  again  turn  His  face  to  the  house 
of  Jacob.  As  this  was  true  of  him  by  whom  the  Old  Testament 
word  was  spoken,  so  also  was  it  true  of  Him  by  whom  God  has 
spoken  now."  ^  As  corroborative  of  the  Apostle's  representation, 
we  may  recall  John.  v.  30  :  "I  can  of  myself  do  nothing ;  I  seek 
not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me."  (Comp. 
John  vi.  38.) 

Third,  he  represents  the  Son  returning  with  those  bretliren,  the 
"many  sons  whom  he  leads  to  glory,"  saying  :  "Behold  I  and  the 
children  which  God  hath  given  me,"  ver.  13  6;  (Isa.  viii.  18). 

The  children  are  so  called  as  children  of  God,^  and  not  of  Jesus, 
to  whom  they  are  brethren.  He  owns  them  at  the  threshold  of 
glory  where  he  once  was  without  them,  the  only  Son.  This 
recalls  John  xvii.  22,  24  :  "  And  the  glory  which  thou  hast  given 
me  I  have  given  unto  them.     Father,  that  which  thou  hast  given 

calls  attention  to  himself  and  his  children;  which  is  no  proof  that  he  calls  them 
brethren  and  is  not  ashamed  of  the  relation.  Moreover,  we  may  notice  again 
what  was  remarked  above  on  i.  5-13  and  this  sort  of  interpretation,  that 
whereas  at  i.  5-13  every  effort  was  made  to  show  that  God  was  to  be  regarded 
as  the  speaker  of  the  words  referred  to,  where  a  Psalmist  was  the  actual  speaker, 
here,  on  the  contrary,  the  same  arts  are  used  to  show  that,  when  a  Psalmist  or 
Prophet  spoke,  it  was  really  the  Messiah  speaking.  Such  efforts  tend  to  reduce 
the  Old  Testament  to  an  enigma. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  common  view,  viz.: 
that  the  quotations  before  us  are  an  appeal  to  Old  Testament  proof,  is  incorrect. 
The  view  given  in  our  explanations  involves  no  such  perplexities.  It  may 
disappoint  the  reader  by  its  simplicity,  and  after  being  used  to  fancy  so  much, 
he  may  exclaim,  is  that  all !  But  one  of  the  hardest  lessons  is  to  "  learn  not 
to  despise  the  simplicity  of  the  truth."  When  we  take  it  in  its  simplicity,  we 
begin  to  learn  its  true  greatness.  So  it  was  with  some  Galileans  after  they  had 
exclaimed  concerning  Christ :  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  Son  ?  "  We  believe 
that  such  will  be  result  in  respect  to  the  explanation  given  in  this  commentary 
of  Paul's  use  of  scriptural  language  in  i.  5-13 ;  ii.  12,  13. 

^  von.  Hof.  *  Comp.  Davidson. 


ii.  14  rt.]     THE  CHILDREN  BLOOD  AND  FLESH.  65 

me,  I  will  that,  where  I  am,  they  also  may  be  with  me ;  that 
they  may  behold  my  glory  which  thou  hast  giveu  me ;  for  thou 
lovedst  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

Thus  representing  the  truth  according  to  the  known  facts  of 
the  manifestation  of  the  divine  Saviour  on  earth,  and  doing  it  in 
this  scriptural  language,  the  Apostle  sets  forth  the  condescension 
and  love  of  His  behavior  in  a  way  both  grand  and  tenderly 
aifecting,  and  fitted  to  awake  our  adoration. 

The  passage  (11  b — 13),  that  we  have  just  been  considering,  ex- 
plains the  subjective  attitude  of  the  Son  toward  those  whom  He 
sanctified.  He  unequivocally  owned  his  relationship  to  them  as 
being  "of  one"  Father.  But  this  does  not  sound  the  depths  of 
what  appeared  in  the  Son  when  He  came  to  speak  for  God  to  us. 
The  Author  continues  to  show  ichat  the  Son  did,  after  haviner 
shown  wdiat  the  Father  did  (vers.  9,  10),  and  he  adds  another 
statement.  It,  too,  is  the  logical  inference  from  the  statement, 
ver.  11  a,  that  "the  Sanctifier  and  sanctified  are  all  of  one,"  and 
not  from  the  statement  that  the  Son  owns  them  as  brethren.  In 
other  words,  what  follows,  like  the  act  of  owning  His  brethren,  is 
the  consequence  of  the  fact  that  they  are  brethren,  i.  e.,  children 
of  one  Father  with  Himself 

Ver.  14  a.  Since  then  the  children  have  been  sharers  of  blood 
and  flesh,  he  also  himself  in  like  manner  partook  of  them. 

The  version  of  1881  translates:  "sharers  in  blood  and  flesh," 
in  order  to  mark  that  a  different  word  {xoivw^iw)  is  used  from 
what  appears  in  the  apodosis,  viz.,  ixz-i-^w,  translated :  partook 
of  the  same.  We  use  the  same  method  for  like  reason.  Alford, 
with  appeal  to  Bleek,  represents  the  common  view,  that  the  said 
verbs  are  almost  convertible, "  so  that  a  minute  distinction  of 
meaning  is  hardly  to  be  sought  for."  It  seems  probable,  how- 
ever, that  the  use  of  different  verbs  marks  a  difference  of  meaning, 
which  may  be  to  mark  a  different  object.^  In  the  instance  before 
us  it  may  mark  that  the  object  referred  to  in  rwv  aurwv  is  different 
from   that  governed   by  xexotvaivrjxev,  in   which    case  rwv   adrwv 


'  Such  is  tlie  effect  in  the  illustrative  quotation  repeated  by  Alford  from 
Bleek,  ef  laov  tuv  klvSvvuv  fiETaax^vreg,  ovx  o/iioiug  rfj^  tvxv^  £K0iv6vr/ffav. 


66  CHRIST    PARTAKER    WITH    THEM.  [ii.  14  «. 

would  refer  to  rd  TzaiSia}  Then  ixeriaxev  would  be  equivalent 
to  fiiruxo?  iyivETo,  and  the  correlative  of  what  is  stated  iii.  14, 
liiroyoi  too  J.  yeyova/iev:  "we  have  become  companions  of  Christ." 
(Comp.  vii.  13.) 

Taking  that  construction,  the  Apostle  says :  Since  the  children 
have  partaken  of  blood  and  flesh  he  also  took  part  equally  with  them. 
This  construction,  with  the  reference  of  twv  abrmv  to  rd  izacdta, 
makes  it  easy  to  understand  why  the  Author  selects  the  adverb 
TrapaTtXrjfftux^.  instead  of,  say,  6;iot(u?.  He  would  signify  how  the 
Son  took  his  place  alongside  of  His  brethren  on  an  equal  footing 
to  endure  what  they  suffered  as  they  endured,  and  on  the  same 
ground  contend  with  and  conquer  death.^  This  construction  con- 
textually  seems  preferable  to  the  common  one  that  is  given  in  the 
translation  above,  and  might  be  chosen  here  without  hesitancy, 
were  it  not  that  it  is  so  entirely  singular.  The  result  of  it  is  not 
doctrinally  diiferent  from  the  common  rendering.  For  if  Christ 
became  the  companion  of  His  brethren  in  the  respect  mentioned 
in  the  present  statement,  it  was  in  order  that  He  might  partake  as 
they  did  of  blood  and  flesh.  But  stated  in  the  form  as  just  con- 
strued, the  representation  is  more  graphic,  and  connects  more 
appropriately  with  the  graphic  representations  of  vers.  12,  13. 
Moreover,  so  construed,  p-srid/ev  in  the  aorist,  becomes  natural,  as 
it  describes  the  historically  past  condition  wherein  Christ  was 
such  a  companion.  This  obviates  the  inquiry  :  why  not  the  per- 
fect, as  z£Z(nvtovijz$i/? 

The  Author  says  the  children,  meaning  the  same  thing  as 
"  many  sons,"  ver.  10 ;  but  he  naturally  exchanges  this  expres- 
sion for  that  used  in  ver.  13,  and  thereby  marks  the  identity  of 
the  subject.  He  says  they  have  been  sharers,  and  the  perfect 
tense  denotes  that  the  situation  remains  the  same. 

But  the  question  is  raised  :  sharers  with  whom  f  It  is  com- 
mon to  supply  "  one  another."  ^     But  -/.(jcycoviw  most  commonly 

'  A  reference  not  suggested  by  any  one  known  to  us  except  Alford,  and  ex- 
pressly rejected  by  him  without  comment.   Alford  follows  Bleek. 

*  Comp.  Lexx.  Passow,  Liddell  and  S.  sub  voc. ;  and  Herod  I.  77,  ayuvaadfj-Evog 
ovTO)  TTapa/rrTaiaiuq  Kvpoq.     "  Cyrus :  fighting  at  equal  advantage." 

*  deWette,  Bleek,  Alford,  von  Hof.,  etc. 


ii.  14  6.]  TO   DESTROY   THE   POWER  OF   DEATH.  67 

has  a  dative  of  the  person  ^  different  from  the  snbject ;  and  it 
seems  quite  as  natural  to  supply  "  others  not  children."  This 
consists  with  the  representation  of  ver.  10  (see  above),  where 
"  sons "  marks  a  distinction  from  "  man  "  in  general,  of  ver.  6 
sqq.  And  this  receives  further  confirmation  when,  in  ver  IG,  the 
Author  so  pointedly  states  that  Christ  "  laid  hold  on  a  seed  of 
Abraham  to  help  them."  By  blood  and  flesh,  of  which,  the  chil- 
dren partook,  and  Jesus  with  them,  is  meant  human  nature  as  it 
is  subject  to  death,  or  over  A\hich  death  has  power,  and  according 
to  which  men  are  mortal.  This  is  plain  from  the  following 
inference,  which  states,  first  of  all  (a),  that  thus  Christ  became 
subject  to  death  equally  with  others,  and  then  (b),  what  He 
effected  by  undergoing  death. 

The  statement  of  ver  14  a  is  the  premise  to  a  conclusion 
that  follows  immediately : 

Ver.  14  6.  In  order  that  by  death  he  might  bring  to  nought 
him  that  has  the  power  of  death,  that  is  the  devil. 

The  suddenness  with  which  our  Author  introduces  this  men- 
tion of  the  devil  tends  to  confound  the  modern  reader.  (Comp. 
at  i.  4,  on  the  similar  introduction  of  angels  as  a  subject.)  It 
must  be  assumed  that  he  assumes  on  the  part  of  the  first  readers 
a  familiarity  with  the  notion  presented,  that  requires  no  intro- 
duction. We  may  assume  that  the  pith  of  what  is  meant  here  is 
familiar  Christian  doctrine  to  us ;  more  familiar  to  us  in  the 
abstract  form  of  presenting  it,  than  in  the  concrete  and  personal 
form  used  in  our  text.  We  have  in  fact  the  same  difference  that 
we  noticed  at  i.  14  ;  ii.  2,  viz.,  the  difference  between  the  manner 
of  presenting  a  tiiith  in  this  epistle  and  of  presenting  the  same 
in  Romans  and  Galatians.  The  recurrence  of  this  use  of  a  con- 
crete and  personal  representation  in  preference  to  the  abstract, 
denotes  a  deliberate  and  consistent  purpose  of  the  Author.  That 
purpose  seems  to  be  to  bring  forward  every  spiritual  and  personal 
agency  that  has  anything  to  do  with  religion,  and  confront  it  with 
Jesus  Christ,  and  to  affirm  the  complete  superiority  of  the  latter 
in  every  respect. 

In  Rom.  v.  12, 14,  Paul  says :  "Sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 

^  Buttm.  Gram.,  p.  100,  and  Bleek,  in  loc. 


68  NULLIFYING   THE   DEVIL.  [il.  14  Z>. 

death  by  sin;"  and  "death  reigned."  In  Rom.  viii.  3,  he 
says :  "  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sin- 
ful flesh,  and  (as  an  offering)  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh."  In  our  chapter  it  is  said  that  God,  in  bringing  many 
sons  unto  glory,  made  the  Captain  of  their  salvation  perfect 
through  suffering  (ver.  10),  and  that  the  Son  partook  of  blood 
and  flesh  that  He  might  through  death  nullify  Him  that  has  the 
power  of  death,  that  is  the  devil  (ver.  14).  And  the  effect  of 
the  power  of  death  is  represented  (ver.  15),  as  a  life-long  fear 
that  operated  as  a  bondage.  "  Death  reigning,"  and  "  the  devil 
having  the  power  of  death  "  are  kindred  notions.  And  so  are 
"  the  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,"  and  "  Jesus  taking  part 
equally  with  the  children  in  their  partaking  of  blood  and  flesh." 
And  so,  furthermore,  are  "  the  Son  condemning  sin  in  the  flesh," 
and  "  Jesus  through  death  nullifying  Him  that  has  the  power  of 
death."     Comp.  also  2  Tim.  i.  10. 

We  are  obliged  to  borrow  such  light  from  sources  outside  of 
our  epistle,  and  thus  acquire  some  equality  with  the  original 
readers.  We  may  excuse  ourselves  from  investigating  Jewish 
notions  relative  to  death  and  the  devil's  part  in  it.^  The  purely 
scriptural  notions  of  the  present  passage  are  the  ones  imj)ortant  to 
us.  We  may  content  ourselves,  for  the  rest,  with  what  is  plainly 
intimated  by  the  Apostle's  words  before  us.  The  text  affirms 
indirectly  that  the  devil  has  the  power  of  death.  "  Death  is  sub- 
jected to  him,  and  must  be  subservient  to  his  purposes.  Not  that 
the  devil  has  power  to  kill  when  he  will ;  nor  that  being  sub- 
jected to  death  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  devil.  .  .  But,  assuming 
these  limitations,  the  devil  has  the  power  of  death  so  far  as  he 
has  the  power  to  use  it  against  men.  As  soon  as  death  (in  God's 
own  time)  overtakes  a  man,  then  the  devil's  will  is  fulfilled  to 
get  this  man  wholly  in  his  pouter.  Death  delivers  the  souls  of 
men  into  his  hand.  For  that  which  falls  into  the  power  of  death, 
falls  also  into  his  power.  In  the  hands  of  the  devil,  death  is  a 
mighty  agent  in  destroying  the  souls  of  men.  Making  power- 
less him  that  has  the  power  of  death  consists,  accordingly,  in 
this,  that  he  is  deprived  of  the  ability  to  use  death  as  a  means  of 

^  In  these  respects,  consult  Alford,  Del.,  in  loc,  Kiehm,  p.  556  sqq.,  654  sqq. 


ii.  15]  WHAT    IS    THE    DEVIL's    POWER.  69 

getting  and  holding  men  in  his  power.  '  Through  death '  Christ 
made  powerless  him  that  has  the  power  of  death.  The  Author 
does  not  say  hy  his  death,  because  in  the  '  oxymoron '  he  Avould 
emphasize  that  the  devil  was  overcome  '  precisely  by  that  which 
is  his  sphere  of  power/  ^  therefore,  that  Christ  turned  the  devil's 
weapon  against  Himself,  and  thereby  got  the  victory  over  him. 
But  of  course  the  death  of  Christ  is  meant."  ^ 

The  representations  of  this  quotation  should  be  accepted  with 
the  modification,  that  the  nullification  of  the  devil,  according  to 
the  Apostle's  present  statement  as  qualified  by  vers.  10,  15,  16, 
extends  no  further  than  the  rescue  of  God's  many  sons  whom 
Jesus  led  to  glory.  The  devil  has  the  power  of  death  still,  (rov  rd 
xpdrog  £'/()VT(x)  but  it  was  nullified  with  respect  to  those  mentioned. 
The  Apostle  Peter  also  speaks  of  this  power  in  the  passage  cited 
above,^  but  calls  it  (by  implication)  the  power  of  death  =  Hades. 
He  says  :  "  It  was  not  possible  that  He  (Jesus)  should  be  holdcn 
of  it  {y.pa.r£'i(7f^ai  otz  aozob  —  held  iu  its  power)."  By  implication 
this  says,  that  such  as  David  were  so  holden  when  they  died.  The 
foregoing  quotation  is  to  be  accepted  with  the  further  modifica- 
tion, that,  as  far  as  it  concerns  true  beKevers,  it  applies  to  the 
situation  previous  to  the  intervention  of  Jesus,  described  in  the 
text.  After  that  intervention,  viz..  His  perfection  and  the  rescue 
here  described,  the  situation  is  for  ever  changed  for  those  that 
obey  Him.  (Comp.  v.  9.)  Moreover,  by  :  through  death  the 
Apostle  may  here  (as  Peter  at  Acts  ii.  24)  mean  death  iu  a  local 
sense,  and  5cd  *  is  then  to  be  taken  locally.  Through  the  con- 
dition or  domain  itself  where  the  devil  has  power,  Jesus  nullified 
the  devil.  This  construction  would  mark  yet  another  parallel 
between  our  text  and  Rom.  viii.  3,  noted  above.  Christ  iu  the 
flesh  condemned  sin,  and  through  Hades  destroyed  the  power  of 
the  devil. 

What  this  nullifying  of  the  power  of  the  devil  was,  is  repre- 
sented in  the  closely  (paratactically)  conjoined  statement : 

Ver.  15.  And  might  deliver  those  as  many  as  by  fear  of  death 
were  all  their  life  subject  to  bondage. 

Won  Hof.,  Schriftbew,  ii.,  p.  274;  also,  his  Coram,  in  lac.  Comp.  Chrys. 
*  Riehm,  pp.  557,  558.     'Acts  ii.  24.      *  See  Grimm's  Lex.,  sub.  voc,  A.  I. 


70         APPEEHENSION  OF  DEATH  A  BONDAGE.      [ii.  15. 

That  he  might  deliver,  iuclireetly  affirms  that  He  did  deliver. 
The  rescue  was  from  the  power  of  death ;  not  from  the  bondage 
described  in  the  following  words,  which  is  described  as  a  thing 
of  the  past.  Those,  refers  as  a  demonstrative  pronoun,  to  the 
subjects  expressed  by  "sons,"  ver.  10,  "brethren,"  ver.  11,  and 
"children,"  vers.  13,  14.^  The  o<7oc  =  as  many  as,  that  rarely 
occurs  after  a  demonstrative  pronoun,  seems  to  imply  others  that 
had  not  the  fear  described  in  the  following  words,^  and  so  to 
define,  in  an  exclusive  way,  those  that  received  the  benefit  of  this 
rescue.^  Such  a  qualified  statement  of  the  extent  of  this  rescue 
is  required  by  the  representation  that  the  devil  has  the  power  of 
death  (ver.  14).  Were  all  rescued  that  were  or  might  come  under 
his  power,  his  power  would  be  ended. 

Those  that  were  delivered  are  described  by  saying  :  by  fear  of 
death  they  were  all  their  life  subject  to  bondage. 

They  were  subject  all  their  life,  describes  the  situation  as  a 
thing  of  the  past,  and  as  characterizing  the  time  while  they  lived. 
It  is  implied  that,  when  they  died,  what  they  feared  respecting 
death  became  actual  experience. 

"  The  life  of  men  before  the  incarnation  and  the  Lord's  vic- 
tory over  death,  was  a  perpetual  fear  of  dying.  The  very  Psalms, 
in  which  the  saints  of  old  lay  bare  their  inmost  souls  are  proof 
of  tliis.^  The  contemplation  of  death  and  of  the  dark,  cheerless 
Hades  in  the  background,  was,  even  for  the  faithful  among  Israel 
under  the  Old  Testament,  unendurable.  They  sought  to  hide  * 
themselves  from  it  with  their  faith  in  Jehovah,  and  so  in  the 
infinite  bosom  of  love,  whence  one  day  the  Conqueror  of  death 
and  the  prince  of  death  should  issue."  ^ 

The  foregoing  admirable  representation  of  the  sentiment  with 
which  saints  before  Christ  viewed  death  makes  it  probable  that 
the  Apostle  means  by  his  descriptive  designation  to  refer  only  to 
such  as  the  subjects  of  the  deliverance  mentioned  in  the  text.  It 

^  Bengel.  ^  Against  Alford.  ^  Contrast  Ps.  Ixxiii.  4 ;  x.  6. 

*Ps.  vi.  5;  XXX.  9;  Ixxxviii.  11  ;  cxv.  17;  Isa.  xxxvii.  18. 

^  Delitzsch  ;  comp.  also  Riehm,  in  Stud.  u.  KriL,  1870,  p.  164  sqq.,  reviewing 
Klosterman  on :  The  hope  of  future  deliverance  from  the  state  of  death  in  Old  Testa- 
ment saints,  Ootha,  1868. 


ii.  16.]  CHRIST    HELPS    MAN's   CAUSE.  71 

favors  tliis  view  to  remember  that  the  Psalmist  says  of  the 
ungodly:  "There  are  no  bands  in  their  death"  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  4), 
and  :  "There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  his  eyes"  (Ps.  xxxvi.  1). 
This  reference,  beside  the  support  it  has  in  the  subjects  "  sons," 
"brethren,"  "children"  (vers.  10,  11,  13,  14),  is  confirmed  by 
the  statement  of  the  following  verse  : 

Ver.  16.  For  verily  not  of  angels  doth  he  take  hold,  but  he 
taketh  hold  of  a  seed  of  Abraham. 

The  (JijTTou  =  verily,  {a~.  ley.  and  not  found  at  all  in  the  LXX.) ' 
gives  an  emphasis,  and  even  an  indignant  emphasis  to  the  present 
denial.  The  verb  iTziXaiL^aMzrai  means  "  to  lay  hold  of  in  order 
to  help,"  the  i-i  in  composition  relating  to  the  object  laid  hold 
of,  and  not  to  the  subject  who  lays  hold.  The  rendering  of  the 
English  Version  of  1611  understood  it,  with  the  great  majority 
of  commentators,  in  the  latter  way,  and  translated :  he  took  on 
him,  and  supplies  the  notion  "  nature ; "  and  thus  the  second 
clause  of  our  verse  became  erroneously  a  favorite  proof  text  for 
the  doctrine  that  the  Son  of  God  assumed  human  nature ;  and 
it  is  commonly  so  used  stiil.^  As  fur  back  as  Castellio,  the  true 
rendering  was  asserted,  and  warmly  combatted  by  Beza.  It  is 
of  comparatively  recent  date  that  commentators  have  agreed  on 
the  above  correct  rendering.  As  Delitzsch  remarks :  "  This 
example  may  be  added  to  the  proofs,  that  exegetical  tradition  is 
not  infallible." 

The  former  misapprehension  and  false  rendering  of  our  verse 
was  due  to  a  misapprehension  of  its  logical  connection.  The 
mention  of  angels  here  shows  that  the  Author  has  not  passed 
from  the  thought  stated  in  ver.  5.  There  he  has  affirmed  that : 
"  not  to  angels  did  God  subject  the  world  that  should  afterwards 
be."  We  inferred  there  (see  above)  that  the  affirmative  contrary 
of  this  statement  is,  that  God  did  subject  it  to  men.  From  ver. 
5,  i.  e.,  in  vers.  6-15,  the  Apostle  has  been  proving  and  illus- 
trating this  affirmative.  Proving  it  by  appeal  to  what  the  Old 
Testament  affirms,  and  by  comment  thereon  (vers.  6-8),  and  by 
pointing  to  Jesus  as  the  one  in  whom  it  is  realized  (ver.  9). 
Illustrating  it  by  affirming  God's  providence  in  the  saving  work 

1  Alford.  "^  Comp.  Alford's  full  history  of  the  text ;  and  see  Del. 


72  NOT   THE   CAUSE   OF    THE   ANGELS.  [ii.  16. 

that  the  Son  did  (ver.  10),  and  by  representing  the  Son's  own 
attitude  in  reference  to  those  He  sanctified  (vers.  11-13),  and  by 
what  He  did  in  consequence  of  His  being,  with  them,  of  one 
Father  (vers.  14-15).  All  that  has  been  said,  vers.  6-15,  rep- 
resents a  human  cause,  viz.,  a  world  to  come  that  was  for  sons 
of  God,  and  Jesus  as  undertaking  that  cause  for  them.  Our 
present  verse  affirms  this  expressly :  he  laid  hold  on  (lie  helped)  ^ 
a  seed  of  Abraham.  But  it  is  coupled  with  a  negative  contrary  : 
he  laid  not  hold  on  (he  helped  not)  angels.  Thus  we  see  the  same 
antithesis  of  ver.  5  reappear.  It  is  in  our  ver.  16  that  the 
Author  expressly  states  the  affirmative  contraiy  of  the  negative 
statement  of  ver.  5.  The  For  of  our  verse,  therefore,  while 
referring  immediately  to  what  is  stated  ver.  15,  extends  back  to 
the  statement  of  ver.  5,  of  which  statement  ver.  15  is  the  con- 
vincing proof. 

What  the  Apostle  affirms,  then,  in  our  verse,  is,  not  that  Christ 
saves  men  and  not  angels.  l-tXaiJ.^,  does  not  mean  "to  save." 
Moreover,  who  could  entertain  a  notion  of  angels  and  salvation 
having  any  relation  to  one  another  ?  '  How  flat  must  be  the 
emphatic  denial  of  something  that  no  one  ever  thought  of  affirm- 
ing !  What  the  Apostle  says  is,  that  Christ  does  not  help  the 
cause  of  angels,  but  that  He  does  help  the  cause  of  a  seed  of 
Abraham.  The  angels,  too,  had  a  cause,  i.  e.,  a  commission,  as 
we  have  seen.^  We  have  seen,  too,  that  what  the  Son  came  to 
reveal  is  a  salvation  for  men  from  consequences  attending  the 
charge  committed  to  angels.*  The  Apostle  now,  after  the  repre- 
sentations of  vers.  6-15,  affirms  that  Christ  takes  part  with  the 
latter  to  help  them,  and  not  with  the  former  to  help  them. 
The  occasion  for  the  tone  of  indignant  emphasis  in  saying  it,  is 
the  same  that  calls  for  the  statement  of  ver.  5  and  the  subsequent 
representations.  It  is  the  same  emotion  that  repeatedly  reveals 
itself  in  Paul,  where  he  deals  with  a  tendency  to  bring  men  into 
subjection  to  the  law.    Compare  his  :  "  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by 

1  Alford. 

^  Except  one  were  to  think  of  "  angels  that  kept  not  their  first  estate,"  Jude 
6 ;  comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  4 ;  which  is  wholly  inadmissable  here. 
^  See  above  on  i.  14 ;  ii.  2.  *  See  above  on  ii.  1,  3. 


ii.  16.]  "E-datJ.[id\>ea&ai   A  SEED   OF   ABRAHAM.  73 

the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ?  .  .  .  He 
that  supplieth  to  you  the  Spirit,  and  worketh  miracles  among 
you,  doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of 
faith,"  Gal.  iii.  2,  5.  It  is  much  to  the  point  here  to  recall  the 
words  of  Christ:  "Think  not  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the 
Father ;  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even  JNIoses,  on  whom 
ye  have  set  your  hope,"  John  v.  45.  And  again  :  "  I  came  not 
to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world,"  John  xii.  47. 

Our  verse  says  he  taketh  hold,  iu  the  present  tense,  because  it 
refers  to  the  present  help  of  salvation  now  available.^  It  says 
also  :  a  seed  of  Abraham,  wJiere  we  would  expect  the  Apostle  to 
say  the  seed  of  Adam,  or  to  use  some  other  generic  term.  This 
is  because  we  are  more  used  to  apprehend  the  truth  as  it 
would  be  spoken  to  Gentiles.  But  the  Apostle  is  here  writing 
to  Christian  Jews,  and  it  is  with  express  fitness  to  them  and 
their  relation  to  "  the  word  spoken  by  angels  "  (ver.  2)  that  he 
says  Jesus  lays  hold  on  a  seed  of  Abraham. 

Though  the  view  of  our  verse  given  above  is  not  at  all  that 
of  von  Hofmann,  yet  what  he  says  on  the  word  l-^daij.^.^  and 
the  seed  of  Abraham  is  so  admirable,  and  so  easily  adapted  to 
that  view  that  it  is  but  just  to  reproduce  it. 

"  The  l-iXaiJ.^a'>z(7fyai  here  is  the  same  as  that  at  viii.  9,  where  it 
is  the  (LXX.)  rendering  of  that  same  pnnn  in  Jer.  xxxi.  32,  that 
in  Isa.  xli.  9,  is  inexactly  translated  by  wjTilaii[i('iyz<THtu.  In  both 
these  instances  the  representation  is  this,  that  Jehovah  has  not 
left  Israel  to  itself,  but  has  laid  hold  of  it,  in  the  one  instance  to 
take  it  to  Himself,  in  the  other  to  lead  it  out  of  Egypt.  And 
such  is  the  meaning  in  the  passage  before  us.^  AVhen  Jesus 
extends  His  hand  to  lay  hold,  it  is  to  such  as  are  Abraham's 
seed.  That  they  are  so  called  (and  not  men)  in  contrast  with 
angels,  is  to  be  explained  by  the  epistle  being  destined  for  Jew- 
ish readers ;  yet  only  so  far  as  so  destining  it  involves  a  con- 
nection with  what  pertains  to  the  Old  Testament.  Not,  however, 
in  the  sense  that  the  Author  avoided  reference  to  the  Gentiles  in 
order  not  to  offend  his  readers.^     He  means  the  seed  of  Abraham 

'  Against  Davidson.  *  Comp.  Del. 

^  Against  Grotius,  Tholuck,  Bleek,  de  Wette,  Liin.,  etc. 


74  THE   FIEST   PAEALLEL   OF   ATTACK   MADE.         [ii.  16. 

not  differently  from  Isa.  xli.  8,  which  passage  he  had  in  mind ; 
viz.,  not  dii-ectly  as  a  designation  for  Christians  in  general/  still 
less  for  the  fleshly  descendants  of  Abraham  as  such/  but,  in 
the  sense  of  redemptive  history-,  as  designating  the  Church  of 
that  promise  given  to  Abraham.^  In  the  Old  Testament  period 
it  had  its  existence  in  the  form  of  a  nationality^  that  traced  its 
origin  to  Abraham,  and  thus  the  Saviour  found  it,  and  reached 
out  His  saving  hand  to  it.*  As  it  is  the  Apostle's  purpose  now 
to  point  to  the  present  fulfillment  in  Christ  Jesus  of  the  Old 
Testament  promise,  he  names  as  the  subject  of  the  redeeming 
act  of  Jesus,  not  a  plm-ality  of  individual  men,  but  the  Chm'ch 
of  the  promise  of  redemptive  history  that  descended  from 
Abraham,  which,  of  course,  is  now  the  Christian  Church."  Thus 
far  von  Hofmann.  But  his  sagacious  reference  to  viii.  7  sqq. 
gives  a  clue  to  a  more  precise  notion  of  the  deliverance  that  the 
Apostle  has  in  mind  in  the  passage  before  us.  It  is  but  another 
aspect  of  that  which  is  represented  at  viii.  7  sqq.  as  release  from 
the  conditions  of  the  old  covenant,  and  exchanging  them  for  the 
new.  Here  it  is,  as  we  foimd  at  vers.  2,  3,  a  salvation  from  the 
consequences  of  the  word  spoken  by  angels.  That  especially 
shows  the  fitness  of  the  specific  expression  :  a  seed  of  Abraham. 
The  law  mediated  by  angels  was  imposed  upon  a  seed  of  Abra- 
ham. The  hand  that  gave  deliverance  from  its  consequences 
must  first  of  all  lay  hold  of  that  seed. 

T^'ith  the  emphatic  statement  of  this  ver.  16  the  Apostle 
finishes  what  he  has  to  say  about  Christ  and  angels,  and  does  not 
again  recur  to  them  in  this  respect.  We  notice  that  the  issue  of 
this  representation  is  like  that  of  the  representations  that  are  to 
follow,  viz.,  the  representations  of  the  former  priesthood  yielding  to 
the  priesthood  of  Christ ;  the  law  giving  way  to  the  better  pro- 
nnse ;  the  old  covenant  giving  place  to  the  new.  Here  it  is  the 
preceding  agents  of  revelation  ceding  place  to  the  present  agent, 
viz.,  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  condition  brought  about  bv  the 
angels  as  "  ministering  spirits,"  i.  14,  Welding  to  a  "world  to 
come,"  ver.  5,  that  Christ  inaugurates.     A^Tiat  we  have  been  in- 

^  Against  Bohme,  Kuinol.  ^  Comp.  Del.  ^  Comp.  Del. 

*Comp.  e.  g.,  Matt.  i.  21. 


ii.  17  a.]        JESUS  made  like  his  brethren.  75 

vestigating  is,  therefore,  no  iutroductiou  to  the  main  subject  of 
the  epistle,  viz.,  to  the  purpose  of  showing  Judaizing  readers  that 
the  old  dispensation  is  superceded.  It  is  that  subject  itself,  and 
the  passage  i.  4;  ii.  16,  is  the  construction  of  the  first  parallel  of 
attack  on  the  position  the  Author  besieges,  showing  first  that 
Christ  is  superior  to  angels,  i.  4—13,  and  then  that  Plis  agency- 
counteracts  the  consequences  of  theirs.  He  has  established  that 
parallel,  and  now  he  uses  the  advantage  to  press  an  appropriate 
inference  (vers.  17,  18)  which,  as  is  his  wont,  he  follows  with  an 
earnest  exhortation.     The  inference  is  as  follows : 

Yer.  1 7  o.  Whence  it  behooved  Mm  to  be  made  like  his  brethren 
in  all  respects. 

The  whence  refers  to  the  statement  that  Jesus  "  lays  hold  on  a 
seed  of  Abraham."  His  doing  so  involved  the  necessity  of  what  is 
now  stated.  For  a  necessity  the  Author  affirms  that  it  was  by- 
using  the  word  axpedev.  But  presented  thus,  as  the  consequence 
of  that  free  act  by  which  the  Son  lays  hold  on  a  seed  of  Abraham 
to  help  them,  the  necessity  is  represented  as  a  freely  accepted  one. 
At  the  same  time,  there  is  implied  the  truth  that  by  this  means 
and  no  other  could  the  Son  save  men. 

What  was  necessary-  was,  that  the  Son  should  become  like  his 
brethren  in  all  respects.  The  emphasis  is  on  xara  -rivr«,  which 
brings  in  more  than  has  already  been  affirmed,  and  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  saying  for  substance  the  same  as  ver.  14.  Besides 
'*  partaking  of  blood  and  flesh,"  the  Author  would  here  affirm  that 
Jesus  was  made  like  His  brethren  in  every  respect,  which  is  not 
necessarily  involved  in  the  previous  statement,  or  at  least  might 
be  overlooked  by  the  readers.  That  Christ  partook  of  blood  and 
flesh  made  Him  mortal  along  with  others.  But  to  say  He  was 
mortal  does  not  involve  that  He  was  also  subject  to  temptation. 
And  without  the  latter  He  would  not  be  made  like  his  brethren 
in  every  respect.  Hence  the  importance  of  this  additional  notion 
now  introduced. 

The  Apostle's  statement  does  not  in  the  least  involve  the  notion 
that  Jesus  became  like  His  brethren  in  the  matter  of  sinning,  and 
there  is  no  occasion  here  for  expressly  disclaiming  that,  as  is  done 
iv.  1 5.    There  is  no  express  mention  of  the  particulars  in  which  He 


76  CHEIST,  A   MERCIFUL   HIGH   PRIEST,  [ii.  ]  7  6. 

became  like  them,  so  that  there  is  no  call  to  disclaim  one  erro- 
neous inference  more  than  another.  The  unreasonableness  of 
such  an  inference  might  be  repelled  in  a  form  like  Paul's  indig- 
nant lano^uao;e  elsewhere  :  "  How  could  He  that  came  to  free  us 
from  sin,  Himself  live  in  sin  ?  "  ^ 

The  reason  of  this  necessity  of  being  made  like  His  brethren  in 
every  respect  is  now  added,  just  as  in  ver.  14  the  reason  is  given 
why  Jesus  became  like  them  in  that  partial  respect  (blood  and 
flesh)  mentioned  there,  viz. : 

Ver.  17  b.  In  order  that  he  might  become  a  merciful  and  faith- 
ful high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  expiate  the  sin  of  the 
people. 

A  diiference  appears  between  the  purpose  stated  here,  and  that 
stated  ver.  14  (both  introduced  by  tVa).  In  ver.  14  the  Son's 
likeness  to  His  brethren  was  in  order  that  He  might  nullify  their 
enemy ;  in  other  words,  deliver  them  by  removing  something 
external  to  them.  In  the  present  verse.  His  likeness  is  repre- 
sented to  be  in  order  that  He  might  remove  something  that  is 
part  of  themselves,  viz.,  their  sins.  He  became  partaker  of  blood 
and  flesh,  i.  e.,  mortal,  that  He  might  be  victorious  over  death.^ 
He  became  m  every  respect  like  His  brethren,  that,  being  tempted. 
He  might  become  a  qualified  High  Priest  to  expiate  their  sins. 
"  The  sting  of  death  is  sin  ;  and  the  power  of  sin  is  the  law."  ^ 

The  Apostle  says  a  High  Priest,  and  not  merely  a  priest.  It 
is  not  merely  to  the  priesthood  of  Christ  that  he  now  turns  our 
attention ;  but  to  Christ  as  our  High  Priest.  Thus  the  priestly 
acts  to  which  he  refers,  and  the  qualifications  he  imputes  to 
Christ  as  such,  must  be  understood  by  what  the  scripture  repre- 
sents of  the  high-priestly  character  and  functions,  and  not  by  the 
priestly  character  and  functions  in  general. 

The  qualities  here  emphasized  are,  that  He  might  become 
a  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest.  Merciful  is  named  first,  and 
with  such  emphasis  in  the  original,  that  faithful,  i.  e.,  "  reliable, 
to  be  trusted,"  appears  as  the  consequence  of  it. 

In  iv.  14 ;  v.  10,  the  Author  amplifies  the  thought  that  he  in- 
troduces by  these  words,  and  we  may  postpone  our  fuller  con- 

1  Cbmp.  Eom.  vi.  2.  "  Comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  50-57.  ^  1  Cor.  xv.  56. 


ii.  17  6.]  EXPIATES   THE   SIX    OF    THE    PEOPLE.  77 

sideratiou  of  it  to  that  place.  But  in  order  to  understand  our 
present  passage,  it  is  important  to  anticipate  here  that,  as  the 
later  passage  shows,  the  likeness  now  pointed  to  is  one  that 
brings  the  Son  into  perfect  "sympathy"  with  His  brethren  as 
persons  "compassed  with  infijiity,"  and  enables  Him  to  "bear 
gently  with  the  ignorant  and  erring,"  because  "he  hath  been  in 
all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are."  The  Sou  was  made  like  his 
brethren  in  every  respect  in  ordei'  that  lie  might  become  all  this 
as  their  High  Priest.  The  Apostle  says :  might  become.  It  is 
common  to  ask  in  this  connection  :  when  did  Christ  begin  to  be 
High  Priest?^  Some  suppose  that  the  text  signifies  that  it  was 
when  He  was  exalted  to  heaven  where  He  began  to  minister  in 
the  true  sanctuary  which  the  Lord  pitched.^  But  the  Apostle's 
representations,  v.  1—3,  show  that  the  condition  of  being  "com- 
passed with  infirmity,"  was  essential  to  Christ's  high-priestly 
character,  and  was  antecedent  to  His  offering  the  sacrifice  that 
expiated  sin,  as  the  same  was  true  of  every  high  priest  (v.  1). 
That  condition  began  when  the  Son  "was  made  like  his  brethren" 
in  every  respect,"  and  that  was  when  He  became  man.  He  be- 
came High  Priest  when  He  was  made  something  expressly  in 
order  to  His  acting  as  High  Priest.  He  was  so  made  in  a  most 
essential  quality  when  He  was  made  like  His  brethren  in  every 
respect.^ 

He  became  a  High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,*  says 
the  Apostle,  thus  denoting  the  respect  in  Avhieh  he  would  have 
the  reader  contemplate  this  high-priestly  function,  viz.,  in  respect 
to  God  above.^  What  that  is,  precisely,  he  explains  in  the  fol- 
lowing clause  :  to  expiate  the  sins  of  the  people. 

The  word  IMffxeff^^m  has  nowhere  i*n  Scripture  the  meaning 
common  to  profane  Greek,  as  if  God  were  made  propitious  toward 
sinners  (much  less  toward  sin  itself)  by  some  sacrifice.^  More- 
over, the  general  phrase :  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  (r«  -pda  rdv 
^sov),  seems  to  be  used  by  the  Author  expressly  to  obviate  such 

^  Comp.  Davidson  in  he.  ^  viii.  2  sqq.  '  Comp.  Davidson. 

*  Comp.  V.  1 ;  Rom.  xv.  17.  *  von  Hof. 

«See  Del.  Comp.  Eiehm.  "Der  Begriff  der  Siihne  im.  A.  Test.  Stud.  u. 
Krit.  1877,  I. 


78  '  IXdffxsad^at.  [ii.  17  6. 

a  notion  here.  Also  the  statement  of  ver.  10  precludes  such  a 
notion  in  the  present  connection.  The  context  of  our  expression 
shows  that  both  Father  and  Son  were  agents  in  what  is  here 
called  expiating  sins.  It  is  the  sins  themselves  that  are  dealt 
with.  What  is  eifected  is,  that  they  are  "put  away/'^  and  that 
those  who  are  guilty  of  them  are  cleansed^  from  them.  By 
saying  that  the  Son  expiated  the  sins,  the  Author  means  to  ex- 
press that  it  was  done  by  a  sacrifice;  as  also  it  must  be;^  and, 
having  pointed  to  the  Son  as  High  Priest,  he  thus  expresses  that 
He'  was  such  for  the  purpose  of  doing  what  only  a  priest  could 
properly  do,  viz.,  oifer  sacrifice. 

The  High  Priest  is  said  to  expiate  the  sins  of  the  people.*  Fol- 
lowing, as  this  does,  the  statement  of  ver.  16,  viz.,  that  "Jesus 
laid  hold  of  a  seed  of  Abraham,"  the  people  can  only  mean  the 
covenant  people  of  God,  in  the  usual  Old  Testament  sense.* 
Moreover,  this  agrees  with  what  has  been  already  noticed^  of  the 
Author's  manner  of  addressing  himself  to  Jewish  readers,  and 
confining  the  immediate  scope  of  his  teaching  to  their  point  of 
view.  By  the  sins  of  the  people,  then,  is  meant  not  simply  what 
would  be  meant  by  the  sins  of  men  expressed  generally.  It 
means  what  that  expression  would  suggest  to  an  Israelite  when, 
not  his  sins  in  particular,  but  his  sins  as  one  of  the  covenant 
people  would  be  referred  to.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  same 
notion  that  would  be  called  up  by  the  language  of  Jeremiah, 
quoted  viii.  12 ;  x.  17.  "And  their  sins  and  their  iniquities  will 
I  remember  no  more."  This  involves  the  notion  of  that  "  word  " 
of  commandments  and  prohibitions  "spoken  by  angels,"  and  the 
"  transgression  and  disobedience "  (ver.  2)  which  determined  the 
condition  of  the  people  previous  to  the  revelation  by  the  Son  who 
brings  salvation.  In  that  condition  the  sins  of  the  people  were 
the  chiefest  and  first  thing  to  be  remembered.  The  work  of  the 
Saviour  and  of  salvation  must  be  to  cause  them  to  be  remembered 
no  more.  That  must  be  effected  by  an  expiation  of  the  sins ;  and 
to  do  that  for  a  ivhole  people  the  Saviour  must  be  a  High  Priest. 

Again,  the  suddenness  with  which  the  Apostle  introduces  this 

1  ix.  26.  ^  ix.  14.  2  ix.  22.  *  Comp.  xiii.  12. 

6  Comp.  iv.  9 ;  v.  3 ;  vii.  11,  27 ;  ix.  7.  «  e.  g.    at  ii.  2,  3. 


ii.  18.]  CHRIST,  HAVING    BEEN    TEMPTED,  79 

new  subject,  viz.,  Christ  as  High  Priest,  must  impress  every 
reader.  Some^  think  this  is  witliout  adequate  preparation;  and 
in  reply  to  this  the  eifurt  is  made  by  others^  to  show  that  such 
representations  as  "cleansing  sins"  (i.  3),  "sanctifying"  (11.  11), 
and  the  mediatorial  "  leadership"  in  the  work  of  salvation  (11. 10), 
as  priestly  acts  and  offices,  and  the  death  of  Christ  for  every  one 
(ii.  9)  as  a  sacrificial  death,  fairly  introduce  the  present  theme. 
But  the  eifort  is  not  satisfactory.  It  is  evident  tliat  the  new 
subject  is  introduced  as  new,  and  without  mediation.^  We  can 
say,  however,  that  death  and  sin  are  but  segments  of  the  same 
circle,  and  the  mention  of  one  calls  up  the  notion  of  the  other. 
Accounting  for  the  removal  of  the  one  will  naturally  be  associated 
with  the  account  of  the  removal  of  the  other.  Hezekiah  exclaims : 
"Thou  hast  in  love  to  my  soul  delivered  it  from  the  pit  of  cor- 
ruption ;  for  thou  hast  cast  all  my  sins  behind  thy  back."  (Isa. 
xxxviii.  17.)  Deliverance  from  death  demands  the  removal  of 
sins.  The  removal  of  sins  demands  a  priest  and  a  sacrifice. 
Hence  the  Author  fittingly,  without  preface,  introduces  Jesus, 
our  High  Priest  as  his  next  subject.  Its  amplification  is  taken 
up  at  iv.  14  sqq.  For  the  present  the  Apostle  states  only  one 
comprehensive  truth  involved  in  that  high  priesthood  as  just 
described. 

Ver.  18.  For  in  that  lie  has  suffered  being  tempted  himself,  lie 
is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted. 

For  introduces  an  explanation  of  how  Jesus  became  "  merciful," 
and  consequently  "faithful,"  as  affirmed  17  6.  It  was  by  being 
tempted  himself.  And  the  notion  "faithfiil,"  i  e.,  reliable,  is  re- 
sumed and  reiterated  in  the  expression :  he  is  able  to  succour  them 
that  are  tempted ;  and  so  the  clause  introduced  by  For  is  equally 
explanatory  of  that.  What  is  meant  by  the  "  ability "  and  the 
"tempting"  mentioned  here  must  appear  from  the  foregoing  ex- 
planatory clause.  Christ  "M-as  tempted  himself"  (aorist  parti- 
ciple), and  "has  suffered"  (perfect)  a  suffering,  indeed,  as  the 
perfect  intimates,  that  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  From  the  imme- 
diately preceding  reference  to  Christ  as  expiating  sin  (ver.  16), 
and  the  previous  use  of  the  word  "to  suffer,"  as  referring  to 

'  e.  g.  de  Wette.  *  e.  g.  Del.  '  So  von  Hof. 


80  CAN  SUCCOUR   THE   TEMPTED.  [ii.  18. 

Christ's  death  (ii.  9,  10;  comp.  v.  8),  we  must  understand:  has 
suffered  to  refer  here  to  the  same  thing.  This  shows  that  "  the 
temptation"  now  mentioned  relates  to  death,  and  means  what 
those  endured  who  apprehended  death.  Such  "temptations" 
Christ  himself  endured  before  he  suffered  deatli,  as  the  Apostle 
explicitly  shows  at  v.  7.^  He  does  not  mean  that  the  actual 
dying  was  the  temptation/  as  will  appear  when  we  come  to  ex-r 
amine  v.  7,  8.  So,  too,  the  temptations  of  those  that  are  tempted 
are  from  the  apprehension  of  death,  not  their  dying  itself.  It  is 
not  merely  his  being  tempted  that  makes  Christ  able  to  succour 
the  tempted.  It  is  the  twofold  fact,  viz.,  that  He  was  tempted 
by  the  apprehension  of  death,  and  has  suffered  death,  that  makes 
Him  able.  The  emphasis,  however,  of  the  present  statement 
rests  on :  being  tempted,  which  thus  involves  connecting  aurut^  with 
T.tipaai'^si^  being  tempted  himself.^ 

The  evidence  that  such  is  the  emphasis,  is :  (a)  that  there 
would  be  no  progress  in  the  thought  of  the  context,  if  the  text 
affirmed  that,  by  having  suffered  death,  Christ  is  able  to  succour, 
as  much  having  been  already  affirmed,  vers.  10  and  14,  15  ;  (b) 
the  statement  of  ver.  17,  with  which  this  is  logically  connected, 
viz.,  that  Christ  became  a  merciful  High  Priest.  As  the  Apostle 
shows  at  iv.  15  ;  v.  1,  2,  it  was  by  undergoing  temptation  that 
Christ  became  sympathetic,  and,  in  that  sense,  compassionate. 

We  can  now  determine  in  what  sense  the  Apostle  here  ascribes 
to  Christ  ability  to  succour.  The  succour  is  to  them  that  are 
tempted  by  the  apprehension  of  death.  This  subject,  viz.,  his 
readers  as  Israelites,  and  the  point  of  view  from  which  they  are 
contemplated,  remains  the  same  as  in  all  the  previous  context 
from  ver.  1.  They  are  those  who  need  to  escape  the  consequence 
of  transgression  and  disobedience  (ver.  2) ;  who,  on  account  of  the 
sufferings  of  death  have  not  their  predestined  glory  and  honor, 
or  world  to  come,  and  need  a  Saviour,  who,  by  suffering  death, 
will  secure  for  them  that  world-to-come  (ver.  9) ;  who  were  all 
their  lives  subject  to  the  fear  of  death  (ver.  15). 

As  has  been  said,  there  is  no  change  in  the  subjects  of  the 

^ Comp.  Luke  xxii.  28.,  ev  roZf  neipaafiolg  /iov.  ^Against  Del. 

»  So  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford. 


iii.  1.]  OFFICES    OF    CHRIST   CONFESSED.  81 

saving  grace  here  referred  to,  or  in  the  point  of  view  in  wliich 
they  are  contemplated.  But  the  Saviour  Himself  is  rcpivsented 
in  another  a.spect.  As  a  suffering  Savioui',  He  has  been  portrayed 
from  ver.  9  onward,  including  tiie  present  text.  But  that  suf- 
fering is  represented  in  different  relations.  In  vers.  11-13  it  is 
condescension  to  the  same  lot  and  condition  with  His  brethren. 
In  ver.  14,  that  suffering  of  death  nullifies  the  danger  of  those 
brethren  ab  extra,  by  nullifying  the  devil's  power  of  death. 
In  ver.  17,  the  same  suffering  nullifies  the  danger  ab  intra,  by 
expiating  the  sins  of  the  people,  i.  e.,  brethren.  In  the  present 
verse  (taken  with  ver.  11  b,  viz.,  the  representation  of  Christ  as 
merciful  and  faithful),  that  suffering,  preceded  as  it  was  by  being 
Himself  tempted,  shows  that  Christ  is  able  to  succour  as  one  is 
only  able  to  do  who  has  himself  experienced  the  same  trouble  that 
now"  appeals  to  Him  for  help.  This  is  called  "ability"  in 
Christ,  with  the  same  propriety  that  in  iv.  15,  it  is  denied  of 
Him  that  He  "  cannot  (//^^  Suvdiie^MrJ)  sympathize ; "  and  affirmed 
of  Him,  V.  2,  that  He  "  can  [(Juvd/j.svo'i)  bear  gently  with  the 
ignorant  and  erring." 

The  Apostle  affirms  that  Jesus  is  able  to  succour  them  that  are 
tempted  {(^wa-at  .  .  .  Tzecpa'^dfj.ivoc^,  in  the  present  tense).  The  con- 
dition of  temptation  continues,  and  is  the  condition  of  those  on 
whom  the  Apostle  presses  the  Saviour.  Hence,  he  presents 
Jesus  as  able  to  save  now.  He  is  able  now  ;  for,  though  His 
sufferings  are  past  and  He  is  at  the  right  hand  of  the  heavenly 
Majesty,  He  Himself  was  tempted. 

Having  now  set  forth  the  superiority  of  the  Son  to  all  other 
foregoing  agents  of  revelation,  expressly  His  superiority  to  angels 
(chap,  i.),  and  then  represented  the  revelation  of  the  Son  as  a 
salvation,  and  set  forth  the  greatness  of  it  .(chap,  ii.),  the  Author 
now  proceeds  to  direct  attention  to  the  person  of  this  Son,  Jesus, 
w^honi  he  has  presented  as  a  Pligh  Priest. 

III.  1 .  "Wherefore,  holy  brethren,  partakers  of  a  heavenly  call- 
ing, consider  the  apostle  and  high  priest  of  our  confession,  Jesus. 

Wherefore,  refers  to  the  preceding  context  from  i.  1  to  the 
present,  as  appears  from  the  way  of  stating  the  objeci  who  is  to 
be  considered,  viz.,  Jesus.     For  He  is  described  in  terms  that 

6 


82  APOSTLE   AND   HIGH    PRIEST.  [iii.  1. 

recapitulate  the  contents  of  what  has  been  said  to  the  present 
point.  As  Liineman  explains :  "  When  the  Author  says : 
Therefore,  consider  Jesus,  the  apostle  and  high  priest  of  our  con- 
fession, it  is  only  a  Greek  way  of  saying :  Therefore,  because 
Jesus  is  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  confession,  consider 
Him  well."  Jesus  is  appropriately  called  Apostle,  as  being  the 
agent  sent  forth  to  speak  for  God,  and  this  title  resumes  the 
Author's  representation  of  Him  in  chap.  i.  It  is  the  only 
instance  of  His  being  so  called  in  scripture.  And  it  may  be 
noted,  that  the  other  agents  of  revelation,  with  whom  He  is  there 
compared,  are  all  but  called  apostles  also  [dnoTTeXXom'Mx),  i.  14. 
And  Jesus  is  expressly  called  high  priest  at  ii.  1 7,  as  the  compre- 
hensive expression  of  that  which  He  does  in  effecting  "  so  great 
salvation." 

The  terms  also  in  which  the  Author  addresses  his  readers : 
holy  brethren,  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling,  reflect  what  has  been 
represented  in  chaps,  i.  and  ii.  concerning  the  objects  of  Christ's 
saving  work.  Brethren,  echoes  the  "many  sons"  and  "my 
brethren"  and  "children,"  of  ii.  10, 12,  13  ;  and  holy  echoes  the 
sentiment  of  " sanctifier "  and  "those  that  are  sanctified,"  ii.  11. 
Thus  says  Delitzsch,  who  also  continues :  "  The  second  term  of 
the  address :  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling,  carries  us  back  to 
i.  1  and  ii.  3.  The  one  calling,  thus  referred  to,  is  the  eternal 
Son,^  through  whom  God  has  now  spoken,  who  came  from 
heaven,  and  is  returned  thither.  And  hence  the  calling,  coming 
through  Him  and  manifested  on  earth,  is  heavenly  (comp.  -fj  a./uj 
xA?7(7;?,  Phil.  iii.  14);  that  is,  a  call  issuing  from  heaven*  and 
inviting  to  heaven  :  its  contents,  the  place  whence  it  proceeds, 
and  that  to  which  it  invites,  all  heavenly." 

In  Rom.  ix.  3  Paul  calls  the  Israelites  "  my  brethren."  He 
did  the  same  in  the  address  in  the  synagogue  of  Antioch  of 
Pisidia.  And  on  the  other  hand,  he  "  and  his  company  "  were 
on  the  same  occasion  addressed  by  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue : 
"  Brethren,  if  ye  have  any  word  of  exhortation  for  the  people, 
say  on."  (Acts  xiii.  1 5.)  Such  was  also  Peter's  mode  of  address- 
ing his  Jewish  auditors  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  29). 

*  But  on  this  see  below. 


iii.  1]  HOLY  brethren;  heavenly  calling.  83 

This  use  of  the  terra  brethren,  antedates  the  use  of  it  as  expressive 
of  Christian  fellowship.  It  is  as  fellow  Israelites  that  Paul  liere 
calls  his  readers  brethren.  He  calls  them  holy,  according  to  the 
well-known  scriptural  authority  to  which  Peter  appeals  :  "  But 
like  as  he  which  called  you  is  holy,  be  ye  also  holy,  in  all  man- 
ner of  living ;  because  it  is  written,  ye  shall  be  holy,  for  I  am 
holy."  (1  Pet.  i.  15,  16;  comp.  Lev.  xi.  44,  45;  xix.  2;  xx.  7, 
8,  26.)  This,  as  something  well  understood,  warranted  the 
Author  above  in  referring  to  the  same  objects  as  "  them  that  are 
sanctified,"  and  to  Jesus  as  the  "sanctifier"  (ii.  11),  without  fur- 
ther explanation. 

Partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling,  suggests  the  question:  who  is 
the  subject  that  calls  f  "  The  subject  (of  xaXim  =  to  call),  is 
everywhere  God;  who  is  also  termed  6  xaXih'^,  Rom.  viii.  11; 
Gal.  V.  8,  0  xaXi(7a<i,  1  Pet.  i.  15,  comp.  v.  10."^  The  present 
text  is  not  an  exception,  and  in  this  particular,  the  language  of 
Delitzsch,  quoted  above,  is  misleading.  It  is  as  members  of  a 
people  called  of  God  to  be  holy  that  the  Apostle  addresses  his 
readers  as  "  holy  brethren,  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling." 

This  whole  descriptive  title,  which  includes  the  Apostle  and 
his  readers,  defines  the  "«s"  and  "w6,"  i.  i. ;  ii.  1,  3.  Being,  as 
it  is,  the  proper  designation  for  those  that  were  the  covenant 
people  of  God,  it  shows  that  our  Author  treats  his  readers  as 
such,  without  regard  to  any  distinction  between  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians; in  other  words,  he  treats  them  as  Peter  did  the  same 
people  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  when  lie  would  persuade  them  to 
receive  and  believe  on  their  Messiah. 

The  Apostle,  however,  addresses  them  here  as  those  that  act- 
ually believed.  Thus,  he  says  :  "  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest 
of  our  confession."  By  this  he  designates  Jesus,  so  described,  as 
the  one  that  is  the  contents  of  the  confession  that  Christians  call 
theirs,  in  the  same  sense  that,  in  the  mouth  of  a  Jew,  i)  rjiurijia 
I'^prj/rxsta  ="  onv  religion"  (Acts  xxvi.  5),  is  that  form  of  worship, 
that  the  Jew  shares  with  his  people.^  Jesus  holds  the  place  of 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  in  our  confession — where  our  is  emphatic, 

^  Cremer's  Lex.  sub  voce  ;  comp.  Meyer  on  Gal.  i.  6.  *  So  von  Hof. 


g4  TWO   HEADS    OF   DISCOURSE.  [iii.  1. 

denoting  antithesis  to  the  confession  in  which  Moses  held  so  high 
a  place.  ^ 

Presenting  Jesus  thus  for  consideration,  as  the  apostle  and  high 
priest  of  their  confession,  the  Apostle  gives  the  two  heads  of  the 
following  discourse  to  chap.  x.  18.^  Under  the  head  Jesus  our 
apostle  we  have  iii.  2-iv.  13.  Under  the  head  Jesus,  our  high 
priest,  we  have  iv.  14— x.  18. 

Considering  Jesus  as  the  confessed  Apostle  of  his  readers,  Paul 
compares  Him  with  Hoses.  Our  reason  for  thinking  that  the 
comparison  touches  only  Jesus  as  Apostle,  is  that  nothing  per- 
taining to  His  high-priestly  functions  comes  under  review ;  as, 
indeed,  there  could  not,  seeing  Moses'  was  no  priest.  Again  he 
introduces  a  new  subject  without  preface,  and  without  pause  in 
his  sentence,  just  as  he  does  the  angels,  i.  4,  and  the  High  Priest 
ii.  17.  The  reasons  in  the  present  case  are  as  obvious  as  in  the 
former.  Jews  called  themselves  Moses'  disciples;^  and  justly, 
for,  as  Paul  says :  their  fathers  were  all  baptized  unto  INIoses.* 
This  might  be  pressed  so  as  to  seem  in  conflict  with  being  a  dis- 
ciple of  Christ.  It  lay,  then,  directly  in  the  way  of  our  Author 
to  show  that  Christ  is  superior  to  Moses.  This  needed  no 
preface.  He  therefore  proceeds  with  an  objective  predicate  par- 
ticipal  clause  that  describes  Jesus  as : 

Ver,  2.  Being  [who  is]  faithful  to  him  that  made  him,  as  also  [was] 
Moses  in  all  his  house. 

A  comparison  of  Num.  xii.  7  shows  that  it  was  God's  house  in 
which  Moses  was  faithful.  The  present  words  express  no  dis- 
paragement of  Moses.  In  one  respect,  they  express  an  exact 
likeness  between  Moses  and  Christ.  Both  were  faithful  to  God, 
who,  by  circumlocution,  is  here  designated  as  him  that  made  him. 
The  simplest  explanation  of  this  making  {jtoievJ)  is,  that  God 
made  each  what  he  is  represented  in  the  context  to  be ;  Jesus  an 
Apostle  and  Hight  Priest ;  Moses,  a  servant  in  the  house  of  God. 

^  Comp.  Davidson. 

*  So  M'Lean,  after  Calvin,  iii.  1 ;  iv.  14 ;  against  Bleek. 

3  John  ix.  28. 

nCor.  X.  2. 


iii.  2.]  CHRLST  ABOVE   FAITHFUL   MOSES.  85 

What  they  were  when  made  is  inseparable  from  the  notion  of 
them  as  made.^ 

AVe  might  suppose  that  the  house  of  God  is  meant  as  the  sphere 
in  which  both  Moses  and  Jesus  displayed  their  faithfulness,^  were 
it  not  that  the  following  vers.  3-6  present  a  contrast  between  the 
two  with  respect  to  the  house  of  God ;  and  especially  were  it  not 
that  the  notion  is  precluded  by  the  proper  understanding  of 
what  is  meant  by  the  house  of  God. 

As  the  \^'ord  faithful  shows,  the  comparison  in  this  case  does 
not  refer  to  revelation  or  speaking  for  God,  as  in  the  comparison 
with  angels ;  but  to  performaiiGe.  The  statement  of  the  text  is, 
that  Jesus  is  faithful  now,  as  Moses  was  faithful.  What  is  tem- 
poral in  the  statement  must  be  determined  by  the  subjects  of 
which  the  text  speaks.  Moses  belonged  to  the  past;  "the 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  profession  "  belongs  to  the  pre- 
sent. Moreover,  the  present  is  required  by  the  statement  of  ver. 
3,  "  has  been  counted  worthy,"  etc.,  and  of  ver.  6,  that  the  Apostle 
and  his  readers  are  the  house  over  which  Jesus  is  appointed.  Jesus  is 
said  to  be  faithful  to  him  that  made  him,  as  He  is  said  to  be  a 
"High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,"  ii.  17,  viz.,  in  order 
to  express,  that  in  the  direction  toward  God  must  appear  the 
qualification  and  performance  that  is  essential  to  His  being  a 
perfect  Apostle  and  High  Priest  for  men.  This  emphasis  in  the 
direction  of  God  seems  intentional,  as  if  to  mark  an  antithesis  to 
ii.  9—18,  which  represents  the  relation  of  Jesus  in  the  direction 
of  men  and  what  makes  Him  a  "  faithful  High  Priest"  (ii.  17), 
with  reference  to  them. 

It  is  obvious,  however,  that  if  it  were  only  the  Author's  in- 
tention to  emphasize  that  Jesus  must  be  qualified  to  be  our 
Apostle  in  the  direction  toward  God,  he  could  do  this  more 
naturally  than  by  the  singular  phrase :  to  him  that  made  him.    This 

'  So  e.  g.,  Farrar ;  who,  notwithstanding,  brings  the  grave  charge  that  our 
phrase,  and  so  our  whole  epistle,  by  the  erroneous  interpretation  of  our  phrase, 
"  lent  itself  with  so  much  facility  to  the  misinterpretation  of  heresy,  that  it 
acted  as  one  of  the  causes  which  delayed  the  general  acceptance  of  the  Epistle 
by  the  Church."     So  the  lamb  lent  itself  to  the  malice  of  the  wolf ! 

2  So  Del. 


86  THE   HOUSE   OF   GOD.  [iii.  2. 

prompts  the  inquiry :  ivhy  does  He  use  this  expression  f  The 
sokition  appears  in  the  following  verse.  The  Apostle  is  compar- 
ing Moses  and  Jesus  with  the  intention  of  affirming  the  superior- 
ity of  the  latter,  which  he  affirms  in  ver.  3,  by  saying,  He  was 
counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Moses.  It  prepares  the  way 
for  that  affirmation  to  remind  the  reader,  that  God  was  the  Maker 
of  both.  The  distinction  in  their  official  functions  and  difference 
in  glory  is  thus  referred  to  the  sovereign  will  of  Him  who  made 
them  the  functionaries  they  were  and  are  :  He  accounted  the  one 
more  glorious  than  the  other.  Such  is  the  Apostle's  motive  in 
saying  :  "  He  was  faithful  to  Him  that  made  Him,"  instead  of 
saying  simply :  "  He  was  faithful  to  God."  When  he  uses  a 
cu'cumlocution  for  God,  as  he  often  does,  the  Apostle  intends 
breviloquence.^ 

For  the  comparison  he  is  making,  in  order  to  affirm  the  super- 
iority of  Jesus,  the  Author  mentions  Moses  in  the  most  favorable 
light.  For  by  the  obvious  reference  to  Num.  xii.  7,  he  calls  to 
mind  the  occasion  when  Moses  received  from  God  the  most  hon- 
orable vindication  of  all  his  life.  Even  Aaron  and  Miriam  were 
signally  rebuked  for  their  pretension  to  some  equality  with  Moses 
in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  Israel.  That  event  left 
Moses  indisputably  supreme,  under  God,  in  all  the  house  of  God, 
both  on  account  of  actual  appointment  and  on  account  of  being 
found  faithful. 

By  my  house,  in  Num.  xii.  7,^  can  only  be  meant  the  same 
thing  that  Moses  means  when  he  speaks  of  "  the  house  of  Jeho- 
vah." ^  By  that  is  always  meant  the  Tabernacle.  The  rarity  of 
the  expression  in  the  Pentateuch  shows  that  it  did  not  grow  to 
any  wider  meaning.  After  the  Temple  was  built,  it  meant  the 
Temple.  Yet  though,  after  that  event,  the  expressions  :  "  house  of 
the  Lord;"  "of  God;"  "Thy  house;"  "His  house;"  "My  house," 
occur  with  great  frequency,  the  meaning  is  never  extended  beyond 

^  Comp.  on  ii.  10. 

*  Comp.  Lange  on  Num.  xii.  7,  in  the  Lange-SchafF.  Bib.  Work. 
^Comp.  Exod.  xxiii.  19;   Deut.  xxiii    18  (19).     In  the  Pentateuch,  these, 
with  Num.  xii.  7,  are  the  only  instances.    Joshua  vi.  24;  ix.  23. 


iii.  3.]  AT  god's  disposal.       •  87 

a  reference  to  the  Temple ;  except  as  the  Temple  may  represent 
the  cultus  of  Jehovah,^ 

In  the  quotation  of  our  text,  and  with  reference  to  Moses, 
Ms  house  means  the  Tabernacle.  This  precludes  the  notion 
entertained  by  many,^  that  the  house  of  God,  as  here  mentioned, 
is  the  common  sphere  wherein  JNIoscs  and  Jesus  displayed  fidt'lity. 
It  is  of  Moses  alone  that  it  is  stated,  that  he  Avas  faithful  to  Him 
that  made  him  in  all  his  house.  The  all  may  be  supposed  to  have 
no  importance  in  the  present  context  beyond  being  part  of  the 
language  quoted.  But  the  recurrence  of  "  the  house "  in  the 
followiuo-  verse  intimates  that  the  Author's  mention  here  of 
his  (God's)  house,  is  with  a  purpose.  The  LXX.  rendering  of 
Num.  xii.  7  reads :  Mu)u<T-rj<i  iv  o)m  ra>  oTxco  ijmo  mffTo^  ifTTt,  where 
iv  oXu)  T.  or/iu)  fjtou  has  the  emphasis,  owing  to  its  having  precedence 
in  the  sentence.  Here  the  emphasis  remains  the  same  by  the 
omission  mffrw  ovra,  in  the  second  clause.  This  calls  attention 
to  the  sphere  of  the  display  of  Moses'  faithfulness  as  his  (God's) 
house.  It  appears  in  the  sequel  that  the  Author  means  to  press 
the  notion  of  God's  propriety  in  that  house.  This  he  does  in 
the  following  verse  in  connection  with  affirming  the  sujjcriority 
of  Jesus  to  Moses. 

Ver.  3.  For  this  person  (o(jro?)  has  been  counted  worthy  of  more 
glory  than  Moses,  according  as  he  that  prepared  it  [the  house] 
has  more  honor  than  the  house. 

For  refers  to  the  exhortation  of  ver.  1,  and  brings  forward 
another  reason  for  considering  "  the  Apostle  of  our  confession," 
in  addition  to  the  reason  comprised  in  the  reference  of  o'^ev, 
''  wherefore."  That  reason  is  the  greatness  of  Jesus  as  the 
Apostle  of  God  compared  with  Moses.  The  Author  affirm.^  that 
Jesus  is  superior  in  honor  to  Moses.  He  affirms  this  dogmati- 
cally, i.  €.,  without  proof.  This,  we  observed,  was  his  manner 
of  affirming  the  superiority  of  the  Son  to  angels  (i.  4).  But  the 
statement  here  is  not  simply  that  Jesus  is  more  glorious.  It  is 
affirmed  that  He  was  counted  worthy  of  more  glory.  This  manner 
of  expression  calls  attention  to  the  active  subject  of  the  predicate 
counted  worthy,  which  is  God,  or  more  expressly  (resuming  tlie 

'  e.  g.,  Ps.  Ixix.  10  ;  IIos.  viii.  1 ;  ix.  15.  ^  Del.  vou  Iluf.,  etc. 


88  so  ALSO  MOSES  AND   JESUS,  [iii.  3. 

language  of  the  ver.  2),  He  that  made  both  Jesus  and  Moses. 
Thus  the  Author  expressly  refers  the  comparative  greatness  of 
Jesus  and  Moses,  to  the  sovereign  will  of  Him  who  made  both, 
and  to  whom  both  were  to  be  faithful.  The  perfect  tense,  hatli 
been  counted,  denotes  that  the  effect  still  remains.  The  glory,^ 
means  "  that  official  '  glory '  or  ^  honor '  in  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
excels  Moses."  ^ 

The  following  clause '  is  meant  to  justify  that  sovereign  discre- 
tion to  which,  by  the  expression :  was  counted  worthy,  the  greater 
glory  of  Jesus  is  referred.  By  xa{f  vaov  without  its  correlative 
xard  TOffouro  *  is  not  denoted  a  measure ;  but  as  at  ix.  27,  it  denotes  : 
according-  as.  Thus  the  Author  adds :  According  as  he  that 
prepareth  the  house  has  more  honor  than  the  house.  The  subject 
of  prepared  is  God,  as  the  statement  of  ver.  5  :  "  He  that  pre- 
pared all  things  is  God,"  requires.  Moreover,  we  notice  that 
iTTiTsXsiv  and  TToisiv  are  used  for  Moses'  performance  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  Tabernacle  (viii.  5),  while  as  again  in  ix.  2,  6, 
xaraffxsud^scw  is  used  (as  r/^icozat  here),  so  as  to  require  us  to  under- 
stand God  as  the  active  subject.  The  use  of  tj/^^j  =  honor, 
instead  of  56^ a  =  glory,  shows  that  something  else  is  meant  than 
comparison.^  For  glory  would  be  compared  with  glory.®  The 
obvious  fact  that  the  preparer  of  the  house  has  more  honor  than 
the  house,  justifies  him  that  prepared  it  in  doing  with  it  what  he 
pleases.     The  house  intended  (as  the    article  defines  it),  is  the 

1  Comp.  2  Cor.  iii.  7-11.  2  jy^^ 

^  Tlie  following  clause  does  not  give  a  measure  of  the  comparative  super- 
iority of  Jesus,  as  has  been  universally  supposed.  The  difficulties  of  that  view- 
have  been  universally  felt  by  all  that  have  adopted  it.  To  maintain  it,  we 
must  explain  why  the  nai}'  oaov  is  not  attended  by  the  correlative  Kara  togovto  ; 
why  TLHTj  is  used  instead  of  6o^a ;  how  God's  having  more  honor  than  the 
house  He  prepared,  can  measure  the  superiority  of  Jesus  to  Moses ;  or  (if  it  is 
assumed  that  the  Author  means  that  Jesus  is  the  preparer  of  the  house  ; 
so  Davidson),  how  that  comports  with  the  saying,  that  "God  prepares  all 
things ; "  and  finally  what  logical  force  there  is  in  the  truism :  "  Every  house 
is  prepared  by  some  one."  In  view  of  these  difficulties,  the  common  interpre- 
tation of  the  clause  in  question  must  be  regarded  as  hopelessly  obscure.  That 
which  is  proposed  above  is  not  without  difficulty  and  obscurity.  It  is  never- 
theless that  to  which  the  foregoing  context  seems  to  lead  up. 

*Comp.  vii.  20.  *  Against  Davidson.  ^Comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  40,  41. 


iii.  4.]  AND   THEIR    RESPECTIVE    GLORY.  89 

house  just  named,  iu  which  Moses  was  faithful,  and  which  is 
called  God's  house.  It  is  referred  to  as  something  that  was  pre- 
pared  (aorist  participle).  This,  especially  taken  in  such  close 
connection  with  the  perfect  (has  been  counted  worthy  of  more 
honor,)  intimates  that  it  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  And  coupled  as 
"  his  house  "  (bear  in  mind  the  expression  of  ownership,)  is  with 
Moses,  both  are  included  in  the  affirmation  that  Jesus  has  been 
counted  worthy  of  more  honor.  For  Moses  and  his  glory  cannot 
be  thought  of  without  the  house  in  which  he  was  faithful. 

We  have  here,  let  it  be  noted,  a  future  theme  of  the  Author's 
(viz.,  that  the  Tabernacle  prepared  at  Sinai  yields  to  the  heav- 
enly sanctuary  in  which  Christ  ministers),  wliich  the  Author 
treats  of  viii.  5  sqq.  It  is  introduced  not  only  as  angels  at  i.  4, 
and  the  High  Priest  ii.  17,  i.  e.,  suddenly,  without  preface,  but 
also,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  about  other  themes,  in  a 
way  that  does  not  immediately  awake  attention  or  suggest  the 
importance  the  Author  attaches  to  it. 

Ver.  4.  For  every  house  is  prepared  by  some  one,  but  God  [is] 
he  that  prepared  [the]  ^  all  things. 

The  logical  connection  of  this  utterance  is  difficult  to  detect. 
The  history  of  its  interpretation  ^  shows  that  such  was  the  case 
back  to  the  earliest  specimens  of  exegesis  that  we  possess  from 
the  Greek  fathers.  It  is  true  that  there  was  considerable  unani- 
mity among  the  ancient  expositors  in  regarding  God  as  predicate 
and  6  Tzdv-a  xaraax.  as  a  designation  of  Christ,  thus  making  the 
passage  a  proof  of  the  deity  of  Christ.^  But  there  is  quite  as 
much  unanimity  among  modern  expositors  in  rejecting  this  inter- 
pretation. The  latter  fact,  therefore,  represents  the  prevalent 
opinion  to  be,  that  even  the  earliest  Greek  expositors  failed  to 
detect  the  logical  connection  and  force  of  our  ver.  4.  The  view 
taken  of  the  foregoing  verse  3  must  control  the  interpretation  of 
this  one. 

The  For  refers  to  the  statement  of  ver.  3  h,  ("  according  as  he 
that  prepared  the  house,"  etc.),  that  justifies  the  sovereign  discre- 
tion which  counts  one  worthy  of  more  glory  than  another.  The 
first  clause  of  our  verse  is  a  truism.  That  does  not  need  to  make 

»  rd  Text.  Reccp.  *  See  in  Alford.  "  Ihld. 


90  GOD   PREPARED   THE   ALL   THINGS.  [iii.  4. 

it  sound  flat,  any  more  than  the  utterance  of  the  dilemma  :  "  It 
is,  or  it  is  not,"  so  often  used  in  argument.  Let  a  truism  be  well 
pointed  and  nothing  is  more  expressive.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
we  miss  the  point,  nothing  can  sound  more  flat.  If  the  utter- 
ance of  the  present  truism  sounds  flat  to  us,  we  may  blame  our 
own  want  of  penetration,  and  wish  the  Author  had  written  more 
lucidly  ;  but  we  cannot  impute  dulness  to  him,  whose  work  before 
us  gives  so  many  proofs  of  extraordinary  acuteness. 

The  truism  of  our  verse  seems  to  be  adduced  in  support  of  the 
foregoing  thought  as  explained  above.  Every  house  is  prepared 
by  some  one,  and  the  house  in  which  Moses  was  faithful  was  no 
exception.  This  expresses  the  notion  that  it  is  not  a  thing  of 
necessary  existence,  but  subject  to  the  will  of  him  that  prepared 
it.  Thus  the  glory  of  Moses,  that  was  inseparably  connected 
with  the  house  in  which  he  was  faithful,  was  a  prepared  thing, 
just  as  the  house  was.  We  find  in  this  a  representation  very 
necessary  to  be  pressed  on  Israelites,  that  were  used  to  contem- 
plate the  Mosaic  economy,  which  centered  in  the  Tabernacle  or 
Temple,  as  something  to  last  forever.  Nor  could  they  be  better 
attacked  on  that  subject  than  by  such  a  truism  as  that  of  the 
text.  Moreover,  we  find  in  this  interpretation  the  preparation 
for  the  direct  representation  the  Author  will  presently  make,  viz., 
that  the  Tabernacle,  with  all  pertaining  to  it,  was  in  prophecy, 
as  it  is  now  actually  in  fact,  treated  by  God  as  something  that 
grew  old  and  ready  to  vanish  away  (viii.  16). 

The  thought  thus  intimated  by  one  truism,  viz.,  what  was  true 
of  any  house,  just  because  a  house,  is  reinforced  by  another,  that 
is  still  more  comprehensive  of  the  same  thought,  viz. :  But  God 
(is)  lie  that  prepared  all  things.  In  this  sentence  God  is  subject.^ 
The  argument  is  a  fortiori.  The  sovereign  discretion,  that 
counts  one  worthy  of  more  than  another,  is  justified  by  the  con- 
sideration that  God  was  the  preparer  of  the  house  that  was  iden- 
tified with  the  glory  of  Moses.  But  it  is  still  more  justified  by 
the  fact  that  God  was  the  preparer  of  all  things.  The  all  things 
must  be  understood  in  a  universal  and  indefinite  way. 

The  affirmation  that  Jesus  was  counted  worthy  of  more  glory 
^  See  Liin. 


iii.  5.]  MOSES   FAITHFUL   FOR   A   TESTIMONY.  91 

thau  ]\Ioses,  so  far  as  it  affirms  that  He  is  more  glorious,  is  made 
dogmatically,  just  as  the  iinportaut  doctrinal  items  concerning 
the  Sou  in  i.  1-4.  The  doctrinal  status  of  the  readers  justified 
this.  But  so  far  as  it  affirmed  that  God  counted  him  worthy  of 
more  glory,  the  Author  has  supported  the  affirmation  by  consid- 
erations that  vindicate  the  divine  discretion  in  this  matter.  He 
now  points  to  a  distinction  between  Moses  and  Jesus  that  illus- 
trates the  superiority  of  the  latter  to  the  former ;  not,  however, 
in  all  its  breadth,  but  in  one  comprehensive  particular.  This  is 
presented  in  vers.  5,  6,  which  are  joined  to  the  context  by  xai  = 
and  in  its  simple  conjunctive  sense  as  bringing  in  something  addi- 
tional.    First,  he  says  of  Moses  : 

Ver.  5.  And  Moses,  indeed,  [was]  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a 
servant  for  a  testimony  of  those  things  that  shall  be  spoken  of 

The  //.cv  =  indeed,  to  be  followed  by  its  correlative  oi  =  but, 
marks  the  utterance  of  an  antithesis,  which  must  be  pointed  by 
an  emphasis  on  the  contrasted  notions  in  the  two  representations. 
In  the  present  verse  that  emphasis  falls  on :  in,  and  :  as  a  servant ; 
and  in  the  following  verse  on  :  over,  and  :  as  a  son.  The  origi- 
nal, as  is  easily  permitted  by  its  idiom,  gives  no  temporal  expres- 
sion to  the  predicate  faithful  as  we  are  compelled  to  do  in  the 
translation  by  was  faithful,  and  is  faithful.  Thus  the  notion  of 
time  is  no  part  of  the  contrast.  It  may  even  be  that,  by  elud- 
ing a  reference  to  time,  the  Author  would  represent  both  on  one 
plane,  as  at  ix.  8,  9,  he  represents  kindred  notions,  using  the 
present  tense ;  where,  after  a  description  of  the  Tabernacle  as  it 
"was  prepared,"  he  says  :  "  The  Holy  Spirit,  this  signifying" 
(present  participle),  etc.,  and  :  "  Which  (is)  a  parable  for  the  time 
now  present."  This  might  be  construed  as  the  pre-sent  of  the 
fact  as  it  appears  contemplated  in  the  scripture.^ 

Reiterating  in  this  way  the  faithfulness  of  INIoses,  he  says  with 
•emphasis,  that  he  was  faithful  in  the  whole  house  of  God,  thus 
representing  him,  not  as  constituting  a  part  of  the  house,^  which 
is  incompatible  with  the  facts  relating  to  the  Tabernacle,  but  as 
circumscribed  and  limited  bv  that  house,  so  that  his  functions 
and  influence  were  coterminous  with  it ;  at  least  so  far  as  they 

*  So  Liin.  *  Against  Del.,  Liin.,  etc. 


92  TuJv  kaXrji'^rjffu/j.ivwv.  ["iii.  5. 

are  described  in  the  following  clause.  In  accordance  with  that, 
or  rather  as  defining  what  was  involved  by :  in  the  house,  the 
Author  adds  :  as  a  servant.  "  The  LXX.  purposely  renders 
I2p  here  by  another  word  than  douXog  or  rral?  (the  renderings 
most  frequently  employed),  in  order  to  exclude  the  notion  of 
unfree,  slavish  dependence,  from  which  Sepdncuv,  in  the  oldest 
Greek,  is  exempt."  ^  But  though  slavish  dependence  is  excluded, 
dependence  is  not ;  and  the  scope  of  Moses'  ministry,  as  defined 
by  :  in  the  whole  house,  is  represented  as  limited  to  that  sphere. 
This  is  expressly  represented  by  the  explanatory  clause  that  fol- 
lows :  for  a  testimony  of  those  things  that  shall  be  spoken  of. 
Moses  was  minister  in  the  Tabernacle  for  a  testimony.  As  he 
performed  no  service  in  or  about  it  (that  being  the  province  of 
the  Levites  and  priests),  the  reference  can  only  be  to  his  agency 
in  making  it,  with  all  its  appointments  complete,  and  instituting 
the  priesthood  with  their  services.  And  all  this  performance 
must  be  meant  as  furnishing  the  testimony  referred  to.  That 
testimony  is  identified  by  the  Author  with  Moses  as  an  active 
agent  in  respect  to  the  Tabernacle.  It  can  have  no  reference, 
then,  to  the  iwomulgation  of  the  law,^  which  had  no  special  con- 
nection with  the  Tabernacle ;  nor  to  additional  and  ampler  reve- 
lations to  be  given,^  which  had  as  little  connection  with  the 
Tabernacle.  The  only  notion  w^e  are  acquainted  with  that 
answers  to  the  present  expression,  is  the  typical  significance  of 
the  Tabernacle,  with  all  its  belongings,  as  unfolded  by  our 
Author  in  chap.  viii.  and  onward.  And  such  is  his  meaning 
when  he  says  Moses  ministered  in  the  house  of  God  for  a  testi- 
mony of  the  things  that  shall  be  spoken  of. 

Things  to  which  Moses'  ministry  was  a  testimony,  the  Author, 
for  the  present,  designates  as  the  things  that  shall  be  spoken  of, 
(rwv  Xalr^f^riaojihu)^^^  fut.  pass.  participle).  No  one  besides  Parens 
(and  perhaps  Lindsay)  seems  to  have  taken  this  expression  in  its 
literal  rendering.  It  has  been  common,  contrary  to  grammar,  to 
take  this  future  participle  in  the  sense  of  "  would  be,"  or  '■'■  were 
to  be  spoken."  Parens  interprets  the  expression  as  meaning  "  the 
things  to  be  spoken  by  us  in  this  epistle  concerning  the  cere- 

^  Del.  "^  Against  de  Wette,  Liin.,  etc.  '  Against  Stuart,  Davidson. 


iii.  5.]  TYPES   AND   SHADOWS.  93 

monies  and  their  meaning."  And  such  is  the  only  admissable 
rendering.  As  the  Author  says,  ii.  5  :  "  The  world  to  come  of 
which  we  speak  {).a).ohtj.s'J),^'  because  the  subject  was  actually  a 
matter  of  discourse  ;  so  he  says  here :  thins^s  that  shall  be  spoken 
of  (rail'  XaArjt'hjffofjLi'/uj'S),  bccause  he  is  not  at  the  point  where  he 
would  make  them  a  matter  of  discourse.  He  comes  to  that  point 
in  chap.  viii.  Similarly  at  ix.  5,  he  says  :  "  of  which  things  we 
cannot  now  speak  {Xiysr^)  severally,"  because  he  does  not  purpose 
to  speak  of  them  in  detail  at  all.  Understanding  the  text  thus, 
we  find  in  it  corroboration  of  the  fact  noted  above  under  ver.  3, 
that  the  Author  has  actually  broached  a  topic  that  he  intends  to 
make  a  matter  of  particular  discourse. 

But  with  this  understanding  of  the  things  that  shall  be  spoken 
of,  we  see  that  the  clause  appears  in  the  sentence  in  a  very  unem- 
phatic  way,  as  expressing  that  the  testimony  was  to  things  of 
importance,  indeed,  but  too  complex  to  be  expressed  in  this  con- 
nection. This  leaves  the  expression  :  "as  a  servant  for  a  testi- 
mony," in  emphatic  isolation  to  point  the  contrast  with:  "as  a 
son,"  in  the  next  verse. 

The  interpretation  just  given  of  rwv  ?.aXrji'^rj<T(>/j.i-Muv,  ought  to 
meet  with  the  more  approval,  because  by  a  direct  grammatical 
construction  it  attains  the  result  that  has  been  adopted  by  the 
majority  of  the  best  commentators,  viz.,  that  by :  the  things  to  be 
spoken  the  Author  refers  to  the  gospel  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  to  that  exclusively,^  but  which  result  they  reach,  either  by  a 
leap,  or  by  much  artful  reasoning.^  Moreover,  entertaining  this 
result,  it  is,  after  all,  chiefly  the  things  of  the  gospel  as  testified 
to  by  the  typical  things  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  these  com- 
mentators understand,  though  they  admit  also  direct  testimony  to 
the  Messiah.  When  we  remember,  that  we  are  indebted  almost 
wholly  to  the  present  epistle  for  the  knowledge  of  how  the 
Tabernacle  types  testified  to  the  gospel,  this  result  issues  in  the 
same  thing  as  has  been  reached  by  the  interpretation  given  above, 
viz.,  that  Moses  testified  to  the  things  that  our  Author  will  speak 
of  later  in  his  epistle. 

1  Del.,  von  Ilof.,  Alford,  Wolf,  Calvin,  etc. 
"  See  e.  g.,  Alford. 


94  MOSES   A  SERVANT   IN   GOD's   HOUSE.  [iii.  6. 

Yer.  6.  But  Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  house,  which  house  we 
are: 

It  is  thus  the  Apostle  presents  Jesus  in  antithesis  to  Moses  as 
described  in  the  foregoing  verse.  In  doing  so  he  calls  Him 
Christ  (for  tlie  first  time  in  the  epistle).  It  is  jaroper  to  suppose 
that  this  is  done  on  purpose.  It  is  the  name  of  Jesus  as  the 
promised  Messiah ;  and  it  is  as  the  Messiah  that  He  has  been 
counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Moses.  We  must  supply  the 
predicate  "  is  faithfid  "  to  this  mention  of  Christ,  with  no  stress  on 
the  copula  "  is/'  as  has  been  noted  under  the  foregoing  verse. 
Christ  (is)  faithful  as  a  Son  over  his  (God's)  house  is  the  present 
statement,  with  emphasis  on  a  Son  and  over,  as  contrasted  with 
"a  minister"  and  "in"  of  the  foregoing  verse.  The  antithesis 
thus  presented,  without  anything  more  to  point  it  than  that  pre- 
sented by  the  words  themselves,  is  the  same  as  that  presented  in 
the  parable  of  The  Wicked  Husbandmen,  between  "  servants  " 
(So6?j)u?)  and  "  his  son,"  and  that  there  justify  the  sentiment : 
"  They  will  reverence  My  Son,"  Matt.  xxi.  37.  There,  too,  the 
husbandmen  say  of  the  Son  :  "  This  is  the  heir."  Our  Author, 
in  i.  12,  has  presented  the  same  notions  as  inseparable  in  Christ, 
by  calling  Him  "  a  Son  whom  He  has  made  heir  of  all  things."  ^ 

This  comprehensive  notion  of  the  Son  is  to  be  retained  here, 
and  that  justifies  the  statement  that  He  is  over  the  house  of  God 
and  not  "  in  "  it.  He  is  faithful  over  the  house  of  God  as  some- 
thing committed  to  His  discretion  like  tlie  "  good  and  faithful 
servant  that  was  faithful  over  a  few  things  "  (i-)  dXiya.  ri<i  rdarai), 
(Matt.  XXV.  21). 

The  antithesis  now  presented  is  complete  in  the  terms : 
"  Moses,  as  a  minister,  in  the  house  of  God,"  and  :  "  Christ,  as  a 
Son,  over  the  house  of  God."  But  as  the  notion  of  Moses  as  a 
minister,  is  supplemented  by  defining  his  ministry  as  a  testimony 
of  the  things  that  shall  be  spoken  of  further  on  in  this  epistle, 
so  the  notion  of  Christ  as  a  Son  in  this  antithesis,  is  supplemented 
by  defining  the  house  over  which  He  is.  Whose  house  we  are, 
adds  the  Apostle.     We  may  suppose  ^  that  there  is  intended  here 

*  See  this  comment  above,  in  he. 

^  With  Del.,  who  ascribes  the  view  to  Ebrard. 


iii.  6.]  CHRIST    A    SON   OVER    IT.  95 

"  a  latent  parallel  between  :  '  for  a  testimony  of  the  things  that 
shall  be  spoken  of/  and  :  whose  house  we  are."  For  the  two 
expressions  actually  refer  to  the  same  notion  in  the  mind  of  the 
Author.  That  intended  by  the  former  expression  has  been  stated 
above.  What  is  meant  by  the  latter  requires  particular  defini- 
tion. 

The  house  referred  to  in :  whose  house,  is  God's,  as  in  the 
foregoing  context.  Nor  are  we  to  surrender  here  the  under- 
standing, that  by  the  house  of  God,  is  meant  the  Tabernacle, 
except  as  the  Author's  present  statement  exchanges  another 
notion  for  that.  What  he  affirms  is,  that  now  the  house  of  God 
is  no  longer  the  Tabernacle,  but  the  body  of  true  believers  in 
Christ.  It  is  because  this  point  has  been  missed,  that  so  much 
confusion  and  disagreement  has  appeared  amongst  commentators 
with  reference  to  what  is  meant  by  the  house  of  God  in  tlie  fore- 
going context.  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  present  text,  which 
affirms  that  believers  are  the  house  of  God,  has  influenced  all  to 
understand  that  the  same  notion  is  meant  by  the  house  of  God  in 
Num.  xii.  7,  as  cited  in  ver.  2.  But  this  is  overlooking  the  fact 
that  it  is  peculiarly  a  New  Testament  revelation  that  God's  people 
are  themselves  God's  house.  And  this  is  not  an  old  fact  set  in  a 
new  light.  It  is  the  revelation  of  a  new  fact  that  distinguishes 
the  new  dispensation  from  the  old.  It  does  not  appear  in  the 
Old  Testament  except  as  a  prophecy  of  what  shall  be  in  the  New 
Testament  dispensation.  Comp.  Lev.  xxvi.  11,  12  ;  Ezek. 
xxxvii.  26-28  ;  and  Rev.  xxi.  3.  Moreover,  as  so  prophesied, 
it  needed  the  inspired  teachings  of  Christ's  apostles  to  bring  out 
the  truth  of  what  was  foretold.^  To  suppose  that  Israelites 
would  understand  by  "  the  house  of  God,"  the  people  of  God,  is 
to  impute  to  the  Apostle's  present  readers  an  understanding  of  the 
truth  that  would  make  much  of  what  he  teaches  in  this  epistle 
gratuitous  labor.  Men  whose  notion  of  God's  house  had  become 
so  enlarged,  would  have  been  in  little  danger  of  thinking  that  true 
worship  of  God  could  only  be  rendered  at  the  Tabernacle,  or  its 
successor,  the  Temple. 

The  novelty  and  unfamiliarity  of  this  New  Testament  fact,  is 

^See  below  on  Lev.  xxvi.  12 ;  and  2  Cor.  vi.  16. 


96  WE   ARE   THAT    HOUSE   OF   GOD.  [iii.  6. 

intimated  in  Paul's  exclamation  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  your  body 
is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have 
from  God?"  1  Cor.  vi.  19.  But  the  classic  passages  are  Ephes. 
ii.  20-22;  2  Cor.  vi.  16.  The  latter  passage  will  better  serve 
our  purpose  in  the  present  connection.  There  Paul  says  :  "  For 
we  are  the  temple  of  the  living  God ;  even  as  God  said  :  I  will 
dwell  in  them  and  walk  in  them  ;  and  I  will  be  their  God  and 
they  shall  be  my  people."  He  quotes  the  language  of  Lev.  xxvi. 
12.  But  it  is  language  repeatedly  quoted  by  the  prophets,  with 
reference  to  the  new  dispensation ;  amongst  others  by  Jer.  xxxi. 
1,  33.  This  prophecy  is  quoted  by  our  Author  twice  in  the 
present  epistle  (viii.  10  ;  x.  16),  as  descriptive  of  the  new  dispen- 
sation in  contrast  with  the  old.  If  Paul  be  (as  we  have  assumed), 
the  Author  of  our  epistle,  we  must  take  it  for  granted  that  he 
understands  the  words  in  Jer.  xxxi.  1,  33,  as  he  does  in  their 
original  place  in  Lev.  xxvi.  12,  when  he  applies  them  in  2  Cor. 
vi.  16.  But  if  one  should  admit  another  author  than  Paul,  yet 
an  inspired  writer,  the  conclusion  must  still  be  the  same.  That 
meaning  is,  that  now  true  believers  are  what  formerly  the  Tab- 
ernacle was,  viz.,  the  house  or  Temple  of  God.  (^aof  -fhou,  "  sanc- 
tuary of  God.") 

The  foundation  of  this  Christian  conception  of  the  Temple  or 
house  of  God,  and  of  the  interpretation  of  the  prophecies  relating 
to  it,  is  such  teaching  of  Christ  as  John  xiv.  23.  "  If  a  man  love 
me,  he  will  keep  my  word ;  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and 
we  will  come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  Comp. 
John  xvii.  21,  23.  Its  development  by  His  inspired  Apostles 
is  found  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17 ;  vi.  19 ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16 ;  Eph.  ii.  22 ; 
1  Tim.  iii.  15 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  5 ;  iv.  17.  It  is  affirmed  also  in  our 
text,  but  receives  no  extended  development  in  our  epistle.  Yet 
the  Author  recurs  again  to  the  thought  of  the  substitution  of  true 
believers  for  the  Tabernacle  in  what  he  says  chap.  xiii.  12. 
There  he  represents,  that  as,  on  the  day  of  atonement,  the  high 
priest  sanctified  the  Tabernacle  even  to  the  sanctuary  with  the 
blood  of  the  sin-offerings,  so  Christ,  suffering  without  the  gate, 
sanctified  His  peoj)le  through  His  own  blood.  Thus  Christians 
"  have  an  altar  of  sacrifice,"  that  is  not  of  the  Tabernacle  (xiii. 


iii.  6.]  IF   M'E   PEIISEVERE.  97 

10).  Thus,  too,  Christians,  in  that  house  of  God  which  they 
constitute,  by  the  confession  of  Christ  as  their  High  Priest, 
"  oifer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continually,  that  is,  the 
fruit  of  lips  Avhich  make  confession  to  His  name,"  xiii.  15. 

From  this  it  appears,  that,  while  the  Author  finds  the  anti- 
type of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  appurtenances  and  their  uses,  in 
Christ  Himself  and  in  the  heavenly  realities  where  Christ  has 
entered  for  us  within  the  vail,  he  also  represents  the  truth  that 
Christians  themselves  are  the  temple  of  God. 

The  latent  parallel  between  :  "  for  a  testimony  of  things  that 
will  be  spoken  of,"  and :  "  whose  house  we  are,"  mentioned 
above,  involves  a  contrast  also,  viz.,  that  Moses  was  a  minister 
in  all  God's  house,  to  represent  by  tyj)ical  institutions  (whose 
meaning  the  Author  will  proceed  to  give)  that  which  is  realized 
in  the  Christian  dispensation.  But  Christ,  as  a  Son,  deals  not 
with  typical  representations  of  the  house  of  God,  and  of  what 
concerns  that  house,  but  with  the  very  house  itself.  Believers 
are  that  house  of  God.  His  blood  actually  cleanses  and  sanctifies 
them. 

But  the  Apostle  says,  we  are  the  house  of  God  (not,  that  believ- 
ers are),  adhering  thus  to  the  subject  as  expressed  in  this  epistle  so 
far,  viz.,  himself  and  his  Jewish  Christian  readers,  as  in  ver.  1. 
He  qualifies  that  subject  in  the  present  passage  by  adding : 

iii.  6  c.  If  we  hold  steadfast  the  boldness,  and  the  glorying  of 
the  hope  imtil  the  end. 

We  retain  the  clause  /ji/pt  TiX<>u<i  /?£/?«£«•>,  firm  until  the  end, 
as  part  of  the  genuine  text,  according  to  Lachman,  Tischendorf, 
Tregelles,  and  Westcott  and  Hort.  The  editions  last  named,  viz., 
Tr.,  W.  and  H.,  leave  it  undecided,  the  latter  enclosing  in 
brackets,  and  the  former  putting  it  in  the  margin.  B^i^aiav 
agreeing  in  gender  with  the  remoter  substantive,  viz.,  -appr,nia\>^ 
as  well  as  the  precedence  of  -Kapp-qq.  makes  the  latter  word, 
boldness  the  more  important  of  the  conjoined  notions,  boldness  and 
glorying. 

By  the  present  qualifying  clause  that  defines  who  arc  indeed 
the  house  of  God,  the  Author  confines  the  designation  to  those 
of  his  readers  that  with  himself  are  true  believers.     As  is  said  : 

7 


98  xavxrjtia   OF   THE   HOPE.  [iii.  7-11. 

"  For  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel."  Rom.  ix.  6. 
Those  that  may  truly  be  called  the  house  of  God,  have  a  hope 
set  before  them.  By  this  is  not  meant  an  inward  feeling,  but 
the  thing  in  prospect  that  causes  the  feeling,  (vi.  18.)  This  hope 
is  only  what  it  ought  to  be  to  those  concerned  when  it  inspires 
boldness  in  them.  This  boldness  is  in  the  direction  toward  God 
(comp.  iv.  16),  as  the  hope  is  a  substance  treasured  up  with  God. 
It  must  be  steadfast  {psliaiav  comp.  ii.  2,  3),  as  the  only  fitting 
posture  of  the  soul  toward  "  a  hope  that  is  sure  and  steadfast " 
(vi.  19).  Such  a  hope  with  its  corresponding  boldness  must  be 
a  boast  {/.afr^rjiia,  not  the  same  as  za^'yijo-:?,  the  act  of  boasting, 
but  the  thing  boasted).  It  is  a  hope  that  is  a  boast  (ro  ■/.air^rjiia 
T?7?  Iknidtx;^  genitive  of  apposition).*  This  boldness  and  boast 
must  he  held  fast  (if  we  hold)  by  those  concerned.  This  desig- 
nates the  point  for  their  active  agency.  The  hope,  as  a  substance, 
is  steadfast  in  itself.  The  boldness  and  the  making  a  boast  of  it 
are  their  part.  They  must  hold  to  that,  and  do  it  until  the  end 
(comp.  ver.  14),  by  which  end  is  meant  the  goal  when  there  is  no 
more  hope,  but  possession,  because  fulfillment  has  come ;  and  thus 
the  fjJ/jii  is  strictly  temporal,  and  not  denotive  of  measure  or 
degree.^  Perseverance  in  the  graces  here  mentioned  must  cha- 
racterize those  that  are  the  house  of  God.  The  present  clause 
shows  that  the  Apostle  does  not  conceive  the  notion  of  a  true 
believer  complete,  without  the  idea  of  his  holding  fast  to  his 
Christian  character  to  the  end.  In  other  words,  let  him  sur- 
render this  boldness  and  boast,  and  he  proves  that  he  is  (eaiiev) 
not  a  constituent  part  of  the  house  of  God.  Comp.  vers.  12,  14; 
X.  39. 

The  qualification  just  added  to  the  statement  "  whose  house  we 
are,"  moves  the  Apostle  to  give  a  warning  that  ought  to  influence 
his  readers  to  hold  fast  the  boldness  and  boast  of  their  hope 
steadfast  to  the  end. 

Yer.  7.  Wherefore,  even  as  says  the  Holy  Spirit:  To-day 
if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice,  8.  harden  not  yonr  hearts,  as  in  the 
provocation,  like  as  (in)  the  day  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilder- 
ness, 9.  where  your  fathers  tried  by  way  of  test,  and  saw  my 

^  von  Hot  *  von  Hof. 


iii.  7-11.]  THE   WAENING    EXAMPLE.  99 

works  forty  years.  10.  Wherefore,  I  was  displeased  with  this  gen- 
eration and  said :  they  ever  err  in  heart ;  but  they  knew  not  my 
ways,  11,  as  I  sware  in  my  wrath,  if  they  shall  enter  into  my 
rest. 

The  wherefore,  ver.  7,  connects  with  take  heed,  ver.  1 2,^  and 
vers.  8-11,  cite  Old  Testament  scripture,  which  the  Author  pur- 
poses to  use  for  warning,  and  also  for  additional  instruction. 
The  awkward  length  of  sentence  has  been  objected  to  this  con- 
struction, as  something  "  monstrous."  ^  But,  beside  the  appeal 
to  vii.  20-22;  xii.  18-24,  as  other  instances  of  the  sort,  we  notice 
that  the  Author  actually  uses  the  text  now  quoted  in  various 
applications  down  to  iv.  10.  Having  in  mind  such  use  for  these 
words,  it  does  not  appear  how  he  could  more  happily  introduce 
them. 

The  Author  quotes  Ps.  xcv.  7-11,  as  rendered  by  the  LXX., 
yet  with  some  important  variations  from  the  original  that  must 
have  an  intentional  significance.  In  ver.  9,  instead  of  "  where 
your  fathers  tempted  me,  tried  me,  and  saw  my  works,"  he 
writes  :  where  your  fathers  tried  by  way  of  a  test,  and  saw  my 
works  forty  years.  In  vers.  10  he  adds  a  wherefore  (dta)  not 
found  in  the  LXX.  or  in  the  Hebrew ;  and  instead  of  "  that 
generation  "  (^z-i'vr^),  he  writes  this  generation  (rauTTj). 

As  says  the  holy  spirit ;  thus  the  Author  expressly  signifies  that 
he  appeals  to  the  scripture  in  question  as  authority.  This: 
as  saith  does  not  denote  that  he  means  to  use  the  language  in 
question  as  his  own ;  and  harden  not,  etc.,  ver.  8,  is  not  the 
Author's  own  warning  introduced  by  wherefore.^  By  these 
words  he  expressly  represents  that  the  scripture  now  quoted  is 
the  utterance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  teas  when  written  ;  it  is  as 
it  at  present  stands  written.  Yet  quoting  the  familiar  words, 
w^ith  changes  that  must  have  been  instantly  detected  by  his 
readers,  he,  in  effect,  comments  Avhile  he  quotes.  In  so  far  the 
Author  uses  the  language  as  his  omu.  The  events  of  sacred 
history  referred  to  by  the  Psalmist,  arc  found  recorded  Exod. 
xvii.  1-7 ;    Xum.  xx.   1-13.     They  both  occurred  early  in  the 

*  So  Calvin,  Pareus,  Bengel,  Liin.,  Alford,  etc.  '  Del. 

'  Against  Del. 


100  APPEAL   TO   SCEIPTUEE.  [iii.  7-11. 

wanderings  in  the  wilderness,  so  that,  as  the  Author  with  the 
Psahuist  represents,  the  forty  years  of  penalty  might  be  spoken 
of  as  following  them.  For  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  as  is  com- 
monly done,  that  the  event  narrated  Num.  xx.  1-13,  occurred 
after  the  years  of  penalty  had  passed,  and  when  the  people  were 
reassembling  at  Kadesh  to  start  afresh  for  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 
It  occurred  on  or  about  their  first  arrival  at  Kadesh  after  the 
departure  from  Sinai.^  The  condemnation  is  recorded  Num. 
xiv.  22  sqq. 

It  cannot  be  deemed  an  accident,  as  regards  our  context,  that 
immediately  preceding  the  words  quoted  from  the  Psalm,  we 
read :  "  O  come,  let  us  worship  and  bow  down ;  and  kneel  before 
the  Lord  our  Maker.  For  he  is  our  God;  and  we  are  his 
people  and  the  sheep  of  his  pasture,"  vers.  6,  7.  For  our 
Author  has  just  said :  "  we  are  His  house,"  and  we  have  seen  how, 
in  2  Cor.  vi.  16,  Paul  founds  this  statement  on  the  words  of 
scripture:  "I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people," 
Lev.  xxvi.  12.  Moreover,  the  words:  "the  Lord  our  Maker," 
ver.  6  of  the  Psalm,  remind  us  of  the  words:  "him  that  made 
him,"  of  our  ver.  2.  This  coincidence  of  thought  shows  that  the 
text  the  Author  now  quotes  has  a  special  fitness  to  his  subject. 

As  has  been  said  already,  the  changes  that  our  Author  makes 
in  his  text  are  in  effect  comments  on  it.  They  are,  so  to  speak, 
comments  by  the  way.  While  quoting  the  language,  he  adapts 
it,  to  give  instant  force  to  the  warning,  ver.  12,  which  is  the  first 
use  he  makes  of  it,  and  which  he  has,  so  to  speak,  on  his  lips, 
and  hanging  in  suspense  from  the  "wherefore,"  ver.  7.  He 
does  this  without  any  violence  to  the  substantial  sense.  The 
important  statements  that  come  out  so  clearly  by  the  changes  are 
thoroughly  justified  by  the  language,  when  rendered  literally. 

By  the  first  of  the  changes  noted  above,  viz.,  in  ver.  9,  the 
Apostle  makes  r«  tpya  fj.nu  the  object  of  both  iTretpaffav  and  el^ov,  and 
qualifies  both  by :  forty  years,  saying :  your  fathers  tried  and  saw 
my  works  forty  years.^  The  Author  shows  at  ver.  17  that  he 
knew  the  correct  reading. 

By  the  second  change,  viz.,  the  introduction  at  ver.  10  of  8u'>, 

'  See  Lange — Schaff  Bib.  Work,  on  Numbers,  xx.  1-13.  ^  So  von  Hof. 


iii.  7-11.]  CONJOINED   WITH   EXPOSITION.  101 

wherefore,  which  couneots  with  the  statement  just  made,  while 
at  the  same  time  it  disconnects  the :  forty  years  from :  I  was 
displeased,  he  makes  God's  displeasure  the  effect  of  that  forty 
years'  trial,  and  the  forty  years'  trial  the  justification  for  God's 
saying :  they  ever  err  in  their  heart.  INIoreover,  the  LXX.  vary 
here  from  the  Hebrew,  which  reads :  "  they  are  a  people  of  wan- 
derers in  heart;"  and  varying  again  from  the  Hebrew:  "and 
they  know  not  my  ways,"  the  LXX.  reads :  uorm  di  <n>x  tyvoxraM 
■/..  T.  L  This  disconnects  these  words  from  those  immediately 
preceding,  which  recite  what  God  formerly  said,  {y.ai  s:\-ov)  and 
make  them  part  of  what  God  says  in  the  inspired  Psalm.  This 
rendering  our  Author  retains,  and  moreover  changes  the  render- 
ing of  the  LXX. :  "  that  generation,"  to  this  generation.  What 
the  quoted  language  accordingly  represents  as  the  expression  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is,  that  because  of  the  forty  years  trial  to  which 
God  was  put,  he  was  displeased  lastingly,  and  said  they  ever  err 
in  heart,  i.  e.,  pronounced  them  radically  and  inveterately  gone 
astray ;  they  on  their  part  did  not  know  His  ways,  ffs  (^—just  as) 
He  swore  in  His  wrath  (viz.,  at  the  time  of  transgression)  that 
they  should  not  enter  into  His  rest.  This  representation  ex- 
pressly precludes  the  notion  that  forty  years  measured  the  extent 
of  God's  anger.  And  the  Apostle  actually  gives  still  greater 
precision  to  this  representation  by  saying  this  generation,  instead 
of  "  that  generation  ; "  for  the  latter  phrase  might  be  taken  as  the 
equivalent  of  forty  years,  like  "\n3,  and  taken  even  more  than  the 
Hebrew,  as  expressly  excluding  application  to  the  following 
generation  that  did  enter  Canaan.  By  writing  :  this  generation, 
our  Author  extends  the  application  even  to  the  period  of  the 
Psalmist,  as  further  appears,  moreover,  from  his  representing  all, 
even  to  the  present  time,  as  under  the  operation  of  the  oath  of 
exclusion  from  God's  rest.  Tlie  rendering  of  the  LXX.  has  the 
further  effect  of  representing,  that  the  observed  fact  (viz.,  that  the 
generation  did  not  know  God's  ways)  was  in  accordance  with  the 
foregoing  oath  that  they  should  not  enter  into  His  rest.  By  "  my 
ways"  is  meant  the  way  God  would  have  them  go,^  viz.,  in  order 
to  enter  his  rest. 

'  So  von  Hof.,  Comp.  Mic.  iv.  2 ;  Ps.  H.  15. 


102  AN   EVIL    HEART  OF   PERFIDY.  [iii.  12,  13. 

All  this  interpretation  our  Author  adopts  in  quoting  the 
LXX.^  "For  it  is  for  him  of  essential  importance  that  the 
generation  which,  by  unbelief  and  rebellion,  had  sinned  against 
God  at  the  beginning  of  the  wandering,  afterward,  also,  did  not 
know  the  ways  of  God,  and  thereby  confirmed  the  oath  of  God 
that  they  should  not  enter  His  rest."^ 

The  Apostle  has  adduced  a  "  scripture  inspired  of  God,"  and 
the  following  context  shows  that  his  purpose  is  to  make  it  "pro- 
fitable for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction 
which  is  in  righteousness."  ^  His  first  use  is  for  reproof  and 
correction ;  and  thus  continuing  the  sentiment  begun  by  wherefore, 
ver.  7,  he  says  : 

Yer.  12.  Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  haply  there  shall  be  in  any 
one  of  you  an  evil  heart  of  perfidy,  when  there  is  a  falling  away 
from  the  living  God ;  13.  but  exhort  one  another  day  by  day,  so  long 
as  it  is  called  To-day,  in  order  that  no  one  of  you  may  be  hardened 
by  the  deceit  of  sin. 

Addressing  his  readers  as  brethren,  thus  resuming  the  same 
notion  as  expressed  in  ver.  1,  the  Apostle  points  them  *to  the 
danger  of  there  being  in  them  an  evil  heart  of  perfidy,  by  which 
he  refers  to  the  notion  of  "an  ever  erring  heart"  represented  in 
his  text,  (ver.  10).  a-Krria  =  "perfidy,"  see  Grimm's  Lex.  He 
says  not :  lest  there  may  be  now,  but  with  a  future  reference : 
lest  there  shall  be,  as  denoting  something  that  will  reveal  itself 
when  the  trial  comes.     That  approaching  trial  he  calls :  when 


^  We  may  at  this  point  remark  once  more  on  our  Author's  mode  of  quoting 
scripture.  His  quotation  here  is  obviously  in  a  fashion,  and  with  adaptations 
to  suit  his  purpose.  Yet,  appealing  to  it  as  autliority,  he  expressly  signifies 
that  he  does  so,  by  a  suitable  formula :  as  saith  the  Holy  Spirit.  (Comp.  ix.  8  ; 
X.  15.)  There  is  nothing  doubtful  or  ambiguous  about  his  quotation.  The 
passage  is  instantly  identified.  It  is  used  in  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words  in 
their  original  position.  No  canons  of  interpretation  need  be  invented  to  account 
for  meanings  that  the  Author  finds  in  it.  These  and  the  changes  he  makes  on 
his  original  explain  themselves,  and  are  justified  by  the  facts  of  the  histories 
concerned,  and  by  Moses'  o-wti  reference  to  the  same  events.  (Deut.  vi.  16.) 
It  is  needless  to  say  how  diflTerent  is  the  Author's  manner  in  his  use  of  scripture 
language,  i.  5-14  and  ii.  12,  13. 

2  von  Hof.  3  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 


iii.  12,  13.]  WHEN   THE    APOSTASY   COMES.  103 

there  is  the  falling  away.^  The  future :  shall  be  (t(7Ta'.),  requires  us 
to  take  the  following  h^  of  h  rw  a-ofrzr^'^m,  in  a  temporal  sense,  as 
at  ii.  8 ;  moreover,  h  with  the  substantive  infinitive  has  the 
sense  of  "while,"  "as,^"  or  "at  the  time  wlien."^  This  future, 
moreover,  determines  the  force  of  the  2  aor.  inf.  (a-offzy^ac)  as  mean- 
ing something  in  prospect.*  "Then  our  expression  means  the 
same  thing  that  in  2  Thess.  ii.  3  is  called  ^  aTata-adia.  At  2  Thess. 
ii.  10,  to  those  that  have  not  received  the  love  of  the  truth,  the 
Apostle  holds  out  the  prospect  that  they  will  become  a  prey  to 
Satan  at  the  time  of  that  apostasy  that  precedes  the  reappearing 
of  Jesus ;  so  here  he  would  have  heed  taken,  that,  when  it  [that 
apostasy]  comes  about,  there  may  not  be  among  his  readers  such 
whose  hearts  are  possessed  of  unbelief  [or  as  we  translate,  per- 
fidy]." ^ 

The  introduction  of  this  idea  of  an  apostasy  is  a  natural  pro- 
gress of  thought  from  the  idea  underlying  the  warning  of  ii.  1-3. 
What  is  common  to  both  is,  that  the  readers  are  contemplated 
as  the  same  people  of  God  as  those  of  old,  under  the  same 
ministry  of  a  word  spoken  by  angels.  There,  however,  the  warn- 
ing was  given  from  the  point  of  vicAV  of  those  hearing  the  gospel 
as  the  oifer  of  salvation  ;  it  was  accordingly :  how  shall  we  escape 
if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation.  Here  the  warnino-  is  to  those 
that  are  regarded  as  having  heard  and  accepted  the  heavenly 
calling,  and  confessed  Jesus  as  their  Apostle  and  High  Priest 
(iii.  1).  Unbelief  in  such  would  be  apostasy.  The  only  strange 
thing  about  the  present  expression  is  that  it  points  to  a  definitely 
expected  event  of  general  apostasy.  For,  as  the  foregoing  con- 
struction shows,  such  is  the  implied  representation.  It  is  even 
made  more  precise  by  the  ev  rr^c  t3//wv  =  in  any  one  of  you,  which 
denotes,  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  whether  or  not  there  shall  be 
such  a  thing  as  is  here  a  subject  of  warning,  but  only  whether  or 
not  it  shall  include  some  of  those  now  warned.  Moreover,  the 
Author's  way  of  saying :  lest  there  shall  be  (/.njTror;  sffrai)  ex- 

^  8o  von  Hof.,  who,  while  justifyins:  this  meaning,  clearly  shows  that  h  can- 
not here  introduce  a  phrase  epexegetical  otaniariag. 

"  See  e.  g.,  Luke  ix.  36.  ^  See  e.  jr.,  Matt,  xiii,  25 ;  Luke  xvii.  11. 

*  Sec  Kiihner  Gram.  IT.  p.  101.  *  von  Ilof. 


104  TO-DAY,  [iii.  12,  13 

presses  the  fear  or  probability  that  the  very  thing  he  would  pre- 
vent will  take  place. 

The  sudden  reference,  without  preface,  to  such  an  event  as  an 
anticipated  apostasy,  we  have  found  to  be  quite  in  our  Author's 
style.  It's  justification  to  his  readers  would  be  in  the  familiarity 
of  such  a  subject  in  their  circles.  To  us,  who  are  making  our- 
selves acquainted  with  those  circles  by  means  of  the  present 
writing,  the  reference  must  be  justified  by  what  shall  further 
appear.  If  nothing  shall  appear  to  show  that  a  definite  and 
anticipated  apostasy  is  in  the  Author's  mind,  then  the  above 
interpretation  of  iv  tw  drrofrrrjvac  must  be  a  mistake,  or  at  least 
doubtful.  But  we  may  by  anticipation  refer  to  vi.  8 ;  x.  27,  39 ; 
xii.  25-27. 

The  Apostle  warns  against  an  evil  that  he  calls :  falling  away 
from  the  living  God.  He  thereby  identifies  its  guilt  and  enormity 
with  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  of  which  his  text  speaks. 
It  would  be  against  the  same  God,  who  ever  lives,  and  must  be 
treated  by  him  in  the  same  way,  because  He  is  ever  the  same. 

In  the  following  verse  13  he  enjoins  what  will  guard  against 
the  impending  danger  of  some  of  them  being  swept  away.  Let 
them  exhort  one  another  day  by  day  so  long  as  it  is  called  To-day. 
The  point  of  this  admonition  is  in  the  second  clause.  It  is  called 
To-day,  means  "called  out,  sounded  out,"  ^  To-day.  The  further 
use  of  this  To-day  in  the  subsequent  context  ^  shows  that  the 
Author  treats  it  as  a  proclamation.  So  long  as,  intimates  that 
the  calling  out  will  cease,  and  so  the  To-day  will  come  to  an  end. 
The  Author,  however,  appeals  to  this  To-day  proclaimed  in  the 
Ps.  xcv.  as  still  in  force.  Because  ijt  is  so,  and  while  it  is  so,  let 
them  exhort  one  another  day  by  day.  This  emphatic  day  by  day 
seems  to  intimate  that  there  were  few  days  left  of  the  period  called 
To-day.  In  x.  25  this  notion  is  actually  expressed.  The  subject 
of  exhortation  must  be,  of  course,  that  of  the  original  text  (ver.  9) : 
"harden  not  your  hearts,"  etc.  But  the  Author  expresses  this 
as  the  effect  of  the  exhortation :  in  order  that  none  of  you  may  be 
hardened  by  the  deceit  of  sin.  By  hardened  the  analogy  is  pressed 
of  the  old  transgression  in  the  wilderness  as  expressed  in  the 

'  See  KaMu  in  Grimm's  Lex.  ^  Ver.  15;  iv.  7. 


iii.  12,  13.]  EXHORT   ONE   ANOTHER.  105 

Psalm,  aud  the  meaning  is :  "  hardened  as  your  fathers  were,"  to 
put  God  to  the  test  as  they  did,  and  to  incur  the  penahy  of  His 
oath,  (vers.  9-11.)  By  the  form  of  expressing  his  thought,  the 
Apostle  represents  what,  in  the  case  of  his  readei-s,  would  exert 
the  hardening  influence,  viz.,  deceit,  or  fraud  of  the  sin.  "The 
sin  (r/^i- da/jTi'as^)  is  here  personified,  comp.  Rom.  vii.  11.  What 
is  meant  is  the  sin  of  falling  back  to  the  old  cultus,  and  thereby 
apostasy  from  Christianity,  to  which  sin  they  were  allured  by  the 
illusive  splendor  of  the  old  cultus.^  In  2  Thess.  iii.  10,  to  M'hich 
we  appealed  above,  Paul  speaks  of  the  apostasy  coming  "with 
all  deceit  of  unrighteousness  for  them  that  are  perishing." 

We  have  not,  therefore,  such  a  general  expression  here  as : 
"through  the  deceitfulness  of  sin,  (Versions  of  1611, 1881.)  Yet, 
for  present  homiletical  use,  reasoning  from  the  particular  sin  re- 
ferred to  here  to  the  general  is  both  obvious  and  justifiable.  AVhat- 
ever  sin  closely  clings  to  one  (xii.  1),  and  so  is  his  besetting  sin, 
acquires  its  influence  by  lying  deceit,  just  as  this  sin  that  beset 
the  Hebrews  to  whom  our  epistle  is  addressed.  And  the  effect 
of  that  deceit  is  to  harden  the  heart,  as  exemplified  by  those  that 
fell  in  the  wilderness. 

The  Author  follows  up  the  exhortation  just  given  by  considera- 
tions added  in  vers.  14,  15,  the  emphatic  points  of  which  are 
that,  we  are  become  companions  of  Christ,  aud  are  so  become 
when  it  is  called  To-day.  Connected  by :  For  with  what  precales, 
the  reference  is  to  the  double  aspect  of  the  warning  of  vers.  1 2, 13. 
We  are  become  companions  of  Christ,  etc.,  refers  to  that  of  ver.  12, 
and  affirms  what  it  is  that  the  perfidy  (art^rta),  against  wliich 
they  are  there  warned,  would  repudiate.  When  it  is  called  To-day, 
etc.,  refers  to  the  counsel  and  warning  of  ver.  13,  and  justifies 
both  its :  exhort  one  another  so  long  as  it  is  called  To-day,  and 
its  warning  against  hardening. 

Such  seems  to  be  the  true  logical  connection  of  vers.  14,  15, 
which  has  perplexed  commentators  from  the  earliest  writings  of 
the  sort  that  have  been  presented  to  us.  The  history  of  this 
matter  is  comprehensively  given  and  the  views  lucidly  classifiwl 
in  Liineman  and  Alfi)rd.     A  perusal  of  that  histyry  will  dis- 

^  Liineman,  comp.  Meyer  on  Eph.  iv.  22. 


106  WE   ARE   COMPANIONS   OF   CHRIST,  [iii.  14. 

courage  any  one  from  attempting  to  classify  his  understanding 
of  the  passage  under  any  of  the  competing  views.  It  is  but  just 
to  state,  however,  that  the  view  now  given  differs  from  all  repre- 
sented in  those  accounts,  in  taking  as  the  emphatic  statement  of 
the  context  the  first  clause  of  ver.  14,  instead  of  the  second. 

The  Author,  continuing  to  use  the  inspired  scripture  he  has 
quoted  for  reproof  and  correction,  (especially  in  the  To-day  of 
ver.  15)  uses  it  also  for  teaching  and  instruction,  and  continues  so 
to  use  it  in  the  same  way  in  chapter  iv.  1-11. 

Yer,  14.  For  we  are  become  companions  of  Christ,  if  we  hold 
fast  the  beginning  of  the  confidence  steadfast  unto  the  end ;  15. 
while  it  is  said :  To-day,  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your 
hearts  as  in  the  provocation. 

The  logical  connection  has  been  represented  above.  Because 
of  the  prominence  and  consequent  emphasis  of  iJ.iroy(n  =  compan- 
ions (for  such  is  here  the  meaning  of  the  w' ord  ^),  and  because  the 
first  clause  of  ver.  14  introduces  a  fresh  thought,  whereas  the 
second  clause  has  been  substantially,  and  partly  in  identical  words, 
expressed  before  (vers.  6),  and  because  it  is  the  first  clause,  we 
are  called  upon  to  take  it  as  the  prominent  and  emphatic  thought 
introduced  by :  For.  And  so  taking  it,  it  justifies  the  construction 
by  the  good  sense  it  yields.  By  saying  :  we  are  become  compan- 
ions of  Christ,  the  Author  institutes  a  parallel  between  his  read- 
ers (including  himself)  and  the  situation  referred  to  in  his  Psalm 
text.  This  is  natural  also  from  the  point  of  view  in  vers.  1-6, 
that  brings  forward  the  comparison  of  ISIoses  and  Christ.  "  Those 
that  journeyed  out  of  Egypt  w^ere  the  companions  of  Moses ; 
but  we  are  the  companions  of  the  promised  Saviour,  and  there- 
fore partakers  of  every  promise  finally  fulfilled  in  him."  ^  Noth- 
ing could  be  more  to  the  point  than  to  follow  up  the  exhortation  : 
"  Take  heed  lest  there  shall  be  perfidy  in  any  one  of  you  "  (ver. 
12),  by  the  statement :  For  we  are  companions  of  Christ.  And 
such  is  the  logical  connection  of  our  ver.  14.  It  confronts  the 
apprehended  perfidy  with  Him  against  whom  it  would  be  dis- 
played. It  has  been  shown  above,  that  h  -tD  dr.narri'mi  does  not 
define  the  perfidy,  but  the  event  that  will  reveal  its  existence. 

*  Del.,  von  Hof.,  De  Wette,  comp.  i.  9.  "^  von  Hof.,  similarly  Del. 


iii.  14.]  IF    WE    HOLD    FAST   TO   THE    END.  107 

The  evident  purpose  of  the  Author  to  point  a  parallel  between 
the  Christian  situation  and  the  situation  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness,  demands  our  special  notice,  and  that  we  bear  it  in 
mind.  For  the  effect  extends  beyond  the  present  context.  It  is 
resumed  again  when  he  recurs  again  to  the  same  subject  of  apos- 
tasy, vi.  1-6.  This  intention  of  pointing  such  a  parallel  occa- 
sions two  peculiarities  of  our  context,  vers.  7-19:  (a)  the  liber- 
ties the  Author  takes  with  the  Old  Testament  scripture  he  uses, 
as  noted  above  under  vers.  7-11  ;  and  (b)  the  choice  of  expres- 
sions used  here  to  describe  the  conduct  against  which  he  warns 
his  readers.  In  the  former  (a)  we  may  observe  the  effort  to 
adjust  the  expression  of  the  substance  of  the  scripture  record  in 
a  way  to  point  the  parallel ;  and  in  the  latter  (b)  a  choice  of 
terms  that  are  suited  both  to  the  ancient  and  to  the  Christian 
situation.  Thus  the  two  situations  are  identified  as  being  essen- 
tially the  same ;  and  the  solemn  and  tremendous  truth  and  fact 
of  the  former  are  shown  to  be  identified  with  the  latter.  This  is 
skillful  composition  in  the  highest  degree,  producing  the  intended 
effect  in  a  fashion  at  once  terse  and  most  irresistible. 

But  the  Author  says :  We  are  become  (/'c^wva/^sv,  which  has 
here  its  proper  meaning)  companions  of  Christ,  with  a  qualifica- 
tion. It  is  the  same,  with  some  modification,  as  that  expressed 
ver.  6.  Here,  he  says  :  If  (iw^^zs/i)  we  hold  fast  the  beginning  of 
the  confidence  steadfast  unto  the  end.  "  The  beginning  of  the 
confidence  is  said,  bccau,se  the  church  of  Christ  is,  in  thought, 
contrasted  with  the  church  of  Moses,  that  had  left  Egypt  with 
the  assured  confidence  that  Moses  was  ordained  to  bring  them  to 
Canaan.  In  this  assured  confidence  they  stood  at  first,  but  did 
not  hold  it  steadfast  unto  the  end."  ^  "  A  beginning  is  meant  that 
shall  abide,  so  as  not  to  be  merely  a  beginning  without  continu- 
ance." 

From  the  present  context  we  are  able  to  define  further  ^  what 
the  end  is  that  is  mentioned,  vers.  6,  14.  If  is  not:  "the  final 
redemption  of  individuals  and  of  the  whole  Church  ;"  '  at  least 
in  the  concrete  notion  of  it  present  to  mind  of  the  Author  and 

'  von  Hof.  '  See  above  on  ver.  6.  '  As  Del. 


108  THE   PROVOCATION.  [iii.  15. 

pressed  on  his  readers  ;  nor  the  death  of  individual  believers ;  ^ 
"  but  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  which  is  constantly  called  by  this 
name,"  as  Alford  ^  says.  But  this  is  true  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  intended  by  Alford.  It  is  the  coming  of  the  Lord  described, 
2  Thess.  i.  7  sqq. ;  ii.  3  sqq.,  as  attending  the  apostasy,  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  our  Author  also  holds  out  in  prospect.  That  apos- 
tasy and  the  consequent  rejection  of  the  Jews  will  end  the  to-day 
for  those  in  their  peculiar  situation,  whom  the  Autlior  addresses. 
Those  that  hold  the  beginning  of  their  confidence  steadfast  to 
that  end,  will  not  afterwards  encounter  the  danger  that  evokes 
the  present  warning.  As  far,  then,  as  that  trial  can  test  the 
matter  (and  they  could  be  subjected  to  no  greater  test ;  moreover, 
taken  as  a  community  it  would  be  decisive),  their  holding  fast 
will  establish  the  reality  of  their  being  the  house  of  God  and 
companions  of  Christ.  Perfidy  and  hardening  will  show  that 
they  never  were  such  in  fact. 

The  text  says  :  If  we  hold,  etc.,  the  idv-Kep  expressing,  that  the 
companionship  mentioned  is  so  far,  and  only  just  so  far,  the  case 
as  the  holding  fast,  etc.,  is  the  case.^ 

Representing,  that :  "  We  have  become  companions  of  Christ," 
with  the  important  qualification  mentioned,  the  Author  adds  that 
this  has  taken  place  : 

Ver.  15.  While  it  is  said:  To-day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice, 
harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation. 

This  is  also  connected  by  the  For  (ver,  14,)  with  tlie  foregoing, 
according  to  the  representation  of  the  logical  connection  given 
above.  The  h  tw  kiysffi'Mt  is  to  be  taken  temporally.*  Chry- 
sostom  views  the  context  as  an  inversion  of  statements,  and, 
making  a  parenthesis  of  vers.  16-19,  he  connects  our  ver.  15 
with  9?o;9r;//w,a£v  ouv  /njmns  x.  r.  A.  iv.  1.  He  represents  the  logi- 
cal connection  of  our  h  rm  Xiyso(T'9at,  as  follows  :  "  For  we,  too, 
have  had  a  gospel  preached  unto  us,  even  as  also  they,  when  it  is 
said.  To-day  if  ye  will  hear  His  voice."  While  taking  a  differ- 
ent view  of  the  context,  we  may  appeal  to  this  construction  in 
support  of  it.     It  is  as  good  sense  to  say  :    "  We  have  become 

^  As  Stuart.  ^  Similarly  Liin.  '  So  von  Hof. 

*  See  above,  on  ev  rcf  anoarfivai,  ver.  12. 


iii.  16.]  WHO   DID   PROVOKE?  109 

companions  of  Christ,  when,  or  while  it  is  said  To-day,"  etc., 
as  to  say :  "  AVe  have  been  preached  to  (evangelized),  when 
it  is  said  To-day." 

What  is  thus  represented  is,  that  becoming  Christians,  while 
it  is  said:  To-day  .  .  .  provocation,  justifies  all  the  points  of 
the  counsel  of  ver  13,  viz.,  to  exhort  one  another,  to  do  it  daily, 
to  do  it  until  the  end,  and  to  do  it  expressly  to  prevent 
hardening. 

As  in  the  provocation,  in  the  Author's  Psalm  text,  presents  the 
example  that  prompts  the  present  exhortation  (as  it  did  the 
Psalmists),  with  its  counsel  and  warning.  As  an  example,  illus- 
trating the  present  danger,  it  is  very  comprehensive.  Tlie  Marn- 
ing  not  to  harden  their  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation,  is  an  inti- 
mation on  the  part  of  the  speaker,  that  the  present  situation 
threatens  to  be  like  that.  The  prominent  characteristics  of  that 
provocation  are  obviously  many.  The  Apostle  proceeds  in  the 
following  vers.  16—19,  to  point  to  a  few  of  them.  We  must 
admire  the  skill  with  which  he  chooses.  He  points  the  applica- 
tion with  laconic  and  nervous  vigor,  that  must  have  fallen  on  the 
hearts  of  his  readers  with  bewildering  impetuosity,  that  nothing 
could  ward  off,  and  that  must  have  been  most  effective  Avith 
every  one  that  was  not  already  hardened.  In  doing  this,  he 
resorts  to  the  interrogative  form  of  self-evidential  appeal,  which 
is  only  the  more  convincing.  The  representations  of  these  verses 
ouffht  to  have  the  same  force  with  the  Christian  reader  now. 
For  there  is  ever  some  form  of  antichrist  present  in  the  world 
(2  John,  7  sqq.),  as  formidable  as  that  against  which  the  present 
epistle  contended.  And  under  the  influence  of  that  antichrist, 
those  that  are  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling  are  in  danger  of 
hardening  their  hearts,  as  the  Israelites  in  the  provocation. 

Hie  first  point  that  the  Apostle  makes  prominent  in  the  warn- 
ing example  of  the  provocation,  is  the  universality  of  it, 

Ver.  16.  J'or  who,  when  they  heard  did  provoke?  Nay,  did 
not  all  they  that  came  out  of  Egypt  by  Moses  ? 

The  universality  affirmed  in  this  second  clause,  had  the  excep- 
tions of  Caleb  and  Joshua,  as  every  one  knows.  Because  the 
universal  statement,  without  mention  of  exceptions,  seemed  to  con- 


110  WITH   WHOM   WAS    GOD    DISPLEASED?  [iii.  17. 

flict  with  the  fact,  this  second  clause  was  from  the  earliest  times 
commonly  read  as  not  being  interrogative  like  the  first.^  Accord- 
ingly, the  Version  1611  reads  as  if  this  clause  made  the  excep- 
tion :  "  Howbeit  not  all  that  came,"  etc.  But  this  is  now 
generally  agreed  to  be  an  error. 

The  second  point  that  the  Apostle  makes  is,  referring  to  the 
greatness  of  God's  anger,  to  call  attention  to  what  provoked  dis- 
pleasure so  great. 

Ver.  17.  And  with  whom  was  he  displeased  forty-years  ?  Was  it 
not  with  those  that  sinned  ?  Whose  members  fell  in  the  wilderness. 

There  is  no  antithesis  implied  here  with  such  as  were  not 
objects  of  divine  displeasure.  The  j^oint  is  to  make  prominent 
that  it  was  sinning  that  provoked  such  displeasure  that  lasted 
forty  years.  The  Author  is  evidently  making  a  climax,  in 
which  the  oath,  with  its  consequences,  represents  more  than  the 
displeasure  and  its  consequences.  Accordingly,  his  reference  in 
the  present  instance  is  to  the  event  named  ]\Iassah,  recorded 
Exodus  xvii.  1-7,  from  which,  according  also  to  Moses,  Deut. 
vi.  16,  the  displeasure  of  God  dated.  The  Author's  text  says: 
"As  in  the  provocation,"  (ver.  15),  and  here  he  points  to  the  first 
stej)  in  tliat  hardening,  which  he  sufficiently  identifies  by  calling 
it  sinning. 

The  following  clause  :  "  whose  members  fell  in  the  wilderness," 
if  included  in  the  question,  would  serve  further  to  identify  those 
that  were  the  objects  of  such  displeasure.  But  this  identifica- 
tion is  plain  enough  without  such  addition,  and  moreover,  has 
been  given  with  precision  in  the  foregoing  verse  as  :  "  all  those 
that  came  out  of  Egypt  with  Moses."  It  is  more  to  the  point 
to  emphasize  the  displeasure  that  such  sinning  provoked.  More- 
over, seeing  that  in  ver.  19  we"  have  an  impressive  affirmation 
following  the  questions  of  ver.  18,  it  is  better  ^  to  put  the  inter- 
rogation at  sinned,  and  take  the  following  clause  as  a  direct 
statement.  Then,  we  must  understand  the  Authi^r  as  uttering 
an  impressive  reminder  of  the  purport  of  that  displeasure  that 
lasted  forty  years,  and  how  it  actually  took  effect. 

^  See,  in  Alford,  the  history  of  the  exegesis. 

*  With  Bengel,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Griesbach,  Lachman,  Tischend. 


iii.  18.]  DISOBEDIEXCE   FORFEITED   THE   REST.  Ill 

Tlie  third  point  that  the  Author  makes  is,  to  remind  the  read- 
ers that  God  (])roceeding  to  more  than  displeasure  that  lasted 
forty  years)  sware  that  they  should  nut  enter  ijito  His  rest,  and  to 
bid  them  notice  what  led  to  that  final  and  fatal  r&mlt.  It  was 
disobedience. 

Yer.  18.  And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they  should  not  enter 
into  his  rest,  but  to  them  that  were  disobedient  ? 

The  event  referred  to  was  that  recorded  Num.  xiv.  22  sqq. 
The  sinning  was  then  more  obstinate  and  aggravated  than  the 
former  event  from  which  God's  displeasure  dated.  (Comp.  Deut. 
i.  26  sqq.)  It  was  actual  rebellion,  and  the  Author  also  means  by 
disobedience  to  call  it  by  a  worse  name.  As  such  God  treated  it 
with  greater  severity  than  mere  displeasure.  He  was  wroth,  and  in 
His  wrath  He  sware  that  they  should  not  enter  into  His  rest. 

Such  are  the  points  that  the  Apostle  makes  prominent  in  that 
provocation  in  the  wilderness,  that  his  Psalm  text  holds  up  as  a 
warning  example.  On  men's  part  the  example  shows  the  univer- 
sality of  the  transgression,  and  how  they  proceeded  to  extremi- 
ties of  sin.  On  God's  part  it  shows  how  He,  too,  proceeded  to 
extremities. 

The  Apostle  has  made  the  foregoing  representations,  vers.  16- 
18,  in  support  of  his  exhortation,  ver.  12,  the  chief  point  of 
which  is  :  "  Take  heed  [iSXineTe  =  see)  lest  there  shall  be  in  any 
one  of  you  perfidy."     He  concludes  them  with  the  statement : 

Ver.  19.  And  we  see  {i3/J-(>/i$v — 8t^  amaziw^^  that  they  were 
not  able  to  enter  in  because  of  perfidy. 

As  Ebrard  expresses  it,  "we  have  in  these  words  a  kind  of 
quod  erat  demonstrandum.^'  ^  The  identity  of  so^ie  of  the 
words  with  those  of  the  exhortation,  ver.  12,  shows  that  the 
Author  is  pursuing  the  same  thought.  What  is  demonstrated 
is  the  justice  of  that  warning  against  perfidy,  founded  on  the 
Psalm  text,  quoted  before  ver.  12.  The  Author's  comments  on 
that  text  in  vers.  16-18,  show  that  those  concerned  were  excluded 
from  God's  rest.  And  we  see  that  they  could  not,  etc.,  is  not  an 
affirmation  in  confirmation  of  the  foregoing  statement  of  ver.  18, 
as  if  it  said  :  and  in  fact  they  did  not  enter  in,  as  wa  see.^     The 

^  Similarly,  de  Wette,  Liin.  '  Against  von  Hof. 


112  A   PROMISE   OF   REST   IS   LEFT.  [iii.  19. 

emphasis  is  on  aTnazia  =  perfidy.  This  different  word  is  not  meant 
as  the  synonym  of  "sinning"  (ver.  17),  nor  of  disobedience 
(ver.  18),  nor  as  the  comprehensive  expression  of  both.  It  points 
to  an  interior  quality  that  is  the  source  of  both,  fully  expressed  in 
ver.  12  as  :  "an  evil  heart  of  perfidy."  To  this  the  Author,  by 
an  emphatic  affirmation,  ascribes  all  the  conduct  and  consequence 
of  that  provocation  in  the  wilderness.  It  is  a  trait  of  our 
Author  to  go  back  to  the  ultimate  sources  of  facts  he  represents.  ^ 
He  does  so  here.  Our  verse  19  (as  the  xal  =  and  shows),  is  no 
inference  from  the  foregoing,  but  the  Author's  statement  of  the 
fundamental  truth  that  explains  the  facts  recited.  He  refers  all 
to  their  dnKTvia  and  says  :  they  could  not  enter  in.  He  says  :  We 
see,  associating  his  readers  with  himself  as  he  does,  ver.  6  : 
"whose  house  we  are/'  and  ver.  14  :  "We  are  become  compan- 
ions of  Christ  ...  if  we  hold  fast,"  and  still  continues  to  do 
all  through  chap.  iv. 

The  application  of  the  Apostle's  Psalm  text  used  as  a  warning, 
in  other  words,  the  full  force  of  the  similarity  of  the  present  and 
the  ancient  situation  intimated  by :  "  as  in  the  provocation," 
appears  when  it  is  seen  that  now,  as  then,  there  is  a  promise  of 
entering  into  God's  rest.  Without  such  likeness,  indeed,  there 
would  be  no  parallel,  and  consequently  little  point  in  the  warn- 
ing example.  What  in  Christian  readers  could  be  perfidy, 
apostasy,  or  turning  back,  and  hardening  like  that  of  the  Israel- 
ites, unless  they  were  under  the  same  promise  of  a  rest  ?  or  at 
least  a  similar  promise  ?  And  what  application  of  that  extremity 
of  God's  wrath,  viz.,  exclusion  from  His  rest,  if  now  He  offers 
no  rest  ?  The  warning  example  would  of  course  apply  exactly  if 
they  had  still  the  same  promise  extended  to  them.  Then,  beside 
having  the  same  living  God  to  deal  with,  they  are  also  related  to 
him  by  the  same  conditions,  only  made  plainer  by  His  past 
judgments,  and  especially  by  the  fact  that  they  "  are  become 
companions  of  Christ."  (iii.  14.) 

It  is,  then,  as  pressing  the  point  of  his  warning  and  counsel, 
iii.  12-19,  that  the  Apostle  proceeds,  in  chap.  iv.  1-10,  to  show 
that  those  who  are  become  the  companions  of  Christ  have  still 

*  Comp.  ii.  10. 


iv.  1.]  DO    NOT   SUPPOSE   YOU   ARE   TOO    LATE.  113 

the  promise  of  rest,  as  well  as  those  that  came  out  of  Egypt  with 
Moses.  Such  appears  to  be  the  progress  of  thought  in  tlie  pro- 
sent  context.  And  thus  the  Author  connects  what  follows  by 
the  simple  illative  particle  («5v). 

TV.  1 .  Let  us  fear,  then,  lest  haply,  a  promise  being  left  of  enter- 
ing into  his  rest,  any  one  of  you  should  suppose  himself  to  have 
come  too  late. 

At  iii.  12,  15,  the  Apostle  addresses  his  readers  only  in  the 
second  person  plural,  and  the  predicates :  "  take  ye  heed  lest  in 
any  one  of  you,"  and  :  "  exhort  ye  lest  any  one  of  you,"  express 
action  that  must  be  exclusively  their  concern.  In  our  verse, 
however,  he  combines  the  first  and  second  persons  in  a  noticeable 
way.  He  says  :  Let  us  fear,  because  it  is  his  fear,  and  he  would 
make  it  the  fear  of  his  readers.  The  thing  feared,  however,  is 
their  danger  and  not  his.  Therefore  he  says  :  lest  any  one  of  you. 
"  Let  us  fear  "  means  also  :  take  care ;  and  the  Apostle  makes  it 
his  care  to  guard  against  the  danger,  not  only  by  warning  his 
readers  of  it,  but  also  by  providing  the  correction  for  it.  By 
saying  :  a  promise  being  left  of  entering  into  his  rest,  he  both 
affirms  a  fact,  and  presents  it  as  a  matter  of  solicitude  in  the  way 
expressed  by  :  "  lest — any  of  you  should  suppose  himself  to  have 
come  too  late "  for  it.  His  readers  can  only  share  his  fear  for 
some  of  their  number,  when  they  see  the  fact  to  be  as  expressed, 
viz.,  a  promise  is  left  of  entering  God's  rest.  That  any  could 
suppose  they  were  too  late,  was,  in  other  words,  to  suppose  no 
such  promise  was  left  and  still  operative.  The  only  way  to 
obviate  this  fear  is  to  show  that  the  promise  is  left.  By  saying : 
let  us  fear,  the  Apostle  intimates  his  purpose  of  obviating  the 
apprehended  danger  by  such  a  demonstration.  Thus  our  ver.  1 
proposes  the  subject  of  the  following  discourse  to  ver.  11. 

What  has  just  been  noticed  may  account  for,  and  at  the  same 
time  help  to  interpret,  certain  ambiguities  in  the  present  verse 
beside  the  combination  of  the  first  and  second  persons  already 
remarked  on.^ 

'Thus,  whether  Karalsiir.  .  .  .  avrov  depends  on  vrrrfpvKhai;  or  whether 
KaTaTiei-iT.  kTrajyel.  is  gen.  absolute ;  whether  the  latter  means:  a  promise  ncfjlrrted, 
or :  a  promise  being  left.     These  points  are  not  to  be  settled,  as  in  Liin.,  .\  Ifi  ird 

8 


114  Oarspr^xivai.  [iv.  1. 

By  saying  :  "  a  promise  being  left  of  entering  into  his  rest," 
the  Author  both  affirms  a  fact  and  presents  it  as  a  matter  of 
solicitude  in  the  way  expressed.  He  says  :  "  let  us  fear."  It  is 
his  fear,  and  he  would  make  it  the  fear  of  his  readers.  But  it 
can  only  become  such  by  his  representing  to  them  the  important 
truth  in  question. 

It  is  important  that  Christians  now-a-days  should  recognize 
how  unique  is  the  subject  that  the  Apostle  here  represents  to  his 
readers.  His  exposition  of  his  Psalm  text  makes  it  appear  how 
the  truth  in  question  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  in 
the  New  Testament,  this  representation  of  the  goal  of  salvation 
as  being  God's  rest  into  which  believers  are  to  enter  stands  quite 
alone.  After  the  Apostles  passed  away,  the  Christian  form  of 
this  Old  Testament  truth  must  have  been  quite  unfamiliar  in 
Christian  circles,  except  as  this  epistle  gradually  won  its  Vv^ay  to 
general  canonical  recognition.  This  was  long  after  there  had 
ceased  to  be  churches  made  up  of  converted  Hebrews,  and  cir- 
cumstanced as  the  original  readers  of  this  epistle  were.  This 
fact  makes  it  possible  that  much  of  our  epistle,  and  especially 
this,  its  most  unique  teaching,  would  be  read  with  Gentile  eyes, 
that  is,  with  habits  of  thought  that  would  miss  the  points  as  they 
would  be  apprehended  by  primitive  Jewish  converts.  It  is  the 
Gentile  interpretation  that  has  been  handed  down  to  us  as  tradi- 
tional. The  fact  now  alluded  to  should  remind  us  also  how  it 
is  possible  that,  with  our  best  efforts  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place 
of  the  original  readers,  we  still  may  fail  to  see  and  read  as  intel- 
ligently as  they.  Such  considerations  have  their  importance  in 
estimating  the  merits  of  conflicting  interpretation.  One  of  the 
most  important  of  these  demands  attention  at  the  very  threshold 
of  our  chap.  iv. 

It  has  been  traditional  to  render  iJ-rir^ort.  .  .  .  doxfj  r:?  ^|  u/iw'y 
u<7T£pTf/.i'ya[ :  "  lest  any  one  of  you  should  seem  to  have  come  short 
of  it,"  or  similarly ;  the  common  notion  being,  that  uarsp-qy 
expresses  "  failure  to  reach  the  goal."  The  rendering  given 
above:  "lest  any  one  of  you  should  suppose  himself  to  have  been 

(comp.  Eaphelius,  ^?7no^  Philol.  ex  Polyb.  et  Arrian)  by  remarking  on  the 
absence  of  the  article  (comp.  von  Hof.  in  loc). 


iv.  1.]  doxiuj.  115 

too  late"  (for  it),  is  recommended  by  G.  Raphel  (f  1740)  in  his 
"Annot.  Philol.  ex  Polyb.  et  Arriau,  1715."  It  is  that  of 
Schoettgen  (f  1751)  in  liis  Hor.  Heb.  1733,  and  of  J.  Sieg. 
Baumgarteu  (f  1757),  "  Erklaerungd.  Briefesa.  d.,  Hebr.  1763." 
It  has  been  adopted  later  by  Bretscueider  and  Wahl,  in  their 
Lexicons,'  and  latest  by  Ebrard  and  von  Hofniann,  in  their  com- 
mentaries on  our  epistle.^ 

According  as  the  one  or  the  other  rendering  is  adopted,  so 
the  view  of  the  whole  passage,  vers.  1-10,  will  be  affected. 
According  to  the  traditional  rendering,  the  aim  of  the  Author 
Mull  appear  to  be,  to  present  considerations  fitted  to  prevent  his 
readers  from  falling  short  of  the  promised  rest.  According  to 
the  rendering  now  proposed,  his  aim  will  appear  to  be,  to  show 
his  readers  that  they  are  not  too  late  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the 
promised  rest ; — and,  also,  not  too  late  to  be  excluded  from  that 
rest  in  requital  of  an  evil  heart  of  perfidy  as  were  those  of  old. 
We  shall  confine  our  notice  to  the  rendering  now  offered.^ 

As  a  question  of  translation,  there  can  be  no  important  objec- 
tion made  to  it.  Such  is  the  use  of  uffzepiw,  and  the  perfect 
uarefirj/.i'^ac  here  can  have  no  other  sense ;  and  much  the  most 
common  meaning  of  (JaxiM  in  the  New  Testament,  is  :  "  to  sup- 
pose." *  Alford  shows  all  this,  and  has  nothing  to  object  to  the 
rendering  but  logical  reasons  drawn  from  the  context.  And  so 
also  Delitzsch  and  Davidson.  But  precisely  such  reasons  sup- 
port it.  Every  reader  sees  that,  as  a  njatter  of  fact,  the  burden 
of  vers.  2-10  is  to  show,  that  the  promise  of  entering  God's  rest 
is  still  in  force,  and  this  constitutes  the  singular  importance  of 
this  unique  passage  of  scripture.  On  the  other  hand,  the  notion 
of  falling  short  of  obtaining  that  rest  is  not  again  presented, 
except  in  a  reference  to  those  who  of  old  entered  not  in.  IMore- 
over,  a  warning  against  falling  short  of  that  rest,  through 
ignorance  of  there  being  still  a  promise  of  it,  is,  as  a  warning, 
much  inferior  in  pungency  to  that  of  iii.  12,  13,  against  perfidy 

'  sub  voce,  varepeo).  *  See  Alford. 

'  Comp.  Del.,  Alford,  who  expressly  combat  it,  and  represent  the  traditional 
interpretation. 
*  Comp.  X.  29. 


11(3  iff/J-sv  eoTjyyehff/iivot.  [iv.  2  CO. 

and  hardness  of  heart,  and  is,  in  fact,  included  in  the  other,  as 
the  less  is  included  in  the  greater. 

In  the  foregoing  prefatory  remarks  on  our  chapter,  an  ade- 
quate and  contextually  logical  motive  has  been  shown  for  warn- 
ing the  readers  not  to  suppose  they  are  too  late  to  have  the 
benefit  of  the  promised  rest.  And,  finally,  the  unique  and 
unfamiliar  doctrine  concerning  God's  rest  is  itself  evidence 
enough  that  the  illusion  referred  to  was  common.  So  that  it 
seems  incomprehensible  how  Delitzsch  can  say,  "  it  could  only 
be  entertained  by  a  deranged  man."  And,  seeing  the  importance 
and  preciousness  of  the  doctrine,  the  need  of  setting  it  forth  was 
very  great,  as  the  dangers  of  ignorance  must  be  very  serious. 

The  Author  says  again  :  *  "  lest  haply,  any  one  of  you,"  thus 
implying,  that,  the  illusion  referred  to  is  common,  and  that  it  is 
only  a  question  whether  some  of  his  readers  should  become  the 
victims  of  it.  Those  that  entertained  the  illusion  that  they  were 
too  late  for  the  promise  of  entering  into  God's  rest,  were  in 
general,  such  as  did  not  believe  the  truth  implied  in  Ps.  xcv.  11, 
as  the  Apostle  expounds  it.  This  appears  from  rj  Ttiffrat  ver.  2, 
and  from  what  is  affirmed  of  ol  TZKT-suffavze^  ver.  3.  We  mean, 
of  course,  belief  in  the  truth  involved  in  this  Psalm,  that  is,  the 
truth  of  the  good  tidings  mentioned  in  the  following  verse ;  not 
belief  that  the  Psalm  taught  the  truth  now  in  question.  The 
latter  would  not  have  been  believed  or  conceived  to  the  present 
day  but  for  the  exposition  in  the  chapter  before  us. 

The  Apostle  begins  to  prove  the  statement,  that  there  is  left  a 
promise  of  entering  into  God's  rest,  by  affirming  : 

Yer.  2  a.  For  we,  too,  have  had  good  tidings  preached  unto  us, 
even  as  those  also. 

This  statement  is  not  to  be  taken  as  the  equivalent  of:  "there 
is  left  a  promise  of  entering  into  his  rest,"  expressed  in  other 
words,  with  the  additional  notion  that  the  promise  is  extended  to 
us.^  By  employing  the  comprehensive  term  iff/xkv  eb-^yytXiaiiivot, 
which  he  uses  again  ver.  6,  the  Author  shows,  that  he  appeals  to 
the  fact  of  the  proclamation  of  God's  grace  in  all  its  length  and 

^  Comp.  iii.  12,  13 ;  and  Ka^uq  Tiveg  avruv  1  Cor.  x.  7,  8,  9. 
*  Against  Davidson. 


iv.  2  6. J  GUVASxapiffixivowi.  117 

breadth  ;  for  which,  both  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament, 
the  proper  expression  is  to  "  preach  good  tidings."     Comp.  Isa. 

lii.    7    in  the    LXA..  j   tws-  ~6dt^  eua-p's/.tl^o/jLiviiu  dxoijv  eiprjvs<;.      The 

same  thing  is  referred  to  in  the  next  clause  of  our  verse  by  the 
term  6  Xoyo^  t^?  axw/;?.  Tliis  proclamation  we  *  have  "  as  well 
as  those  "  others  {ixs'ivot),  by  M'hom  are  meant  the  Israelites  in 
the  desert.  By  affirming  this  at  the  present  point,  the  Author 
comprehends  all  such  hearers  of  all  times  under  one  class.  This 
proclamation,  in  Moses'  time,  was  a  call  to  enter  God's  rest.  Pie 
means  to  show  that  it  is  the  same  now ;  as,  indeed,  it  has  always 
been  and  will  be  while  good  tidings  are  preached.  It  was  so  in 
Moses'  time,  because  God's  rest  remained  as  something  for  per- 
sons to  enter.  It  is  so  still,  for  the  same  reason.  It  is  this  the 
Author  aims  to  show. 

The  fact  that  those  of  old  were  not  able  to  enter  in  might  seem 
to  end  the  proclamation  (axorj)  so  far  as  it  was  an  offer  of  sharing 
GocVs  rest.  To  show  that  such  was  not  the  fact,  but  only  that, 
for  cause,  the  proclamation  was  inoperative  in  their  case,  the 
Author  adds  the  explanation  of: 

Ver.  2  b.  But  the  word  of  proclamation  did  not  profit  those  not 
combined  by  faith  with  them  that  heard.* 

Taking  the  text  of  our  ver.  2  6  as  given  in  Westcott  &  Hort, 
we  translate  axun^  "  proclamation."    It  means,  not  "  the  hearing," 

'  Emphatic ;  against  Davidson. 

*  By  tlie  rules  of  textual  criticism,  that  are  regarded  as  imperative  in  other 
cases,  it  is  clear,  that  we  must  accept,  as  the  correct  text,  here :  'cKEtvovg  fi?) 
owKEKEpaa/xEvovg  Ty  Tr/ore*  Tolg  aKomaaiv.  Only  the  difficulty  of  making  sense 
out  of  it  is  against  it.  That  very  fact,  however,  in  the  case  of  other  disputed 
texts,  is,  by  rule  put  in  the  balance  in  favor  of  the  reading  of  which  it  is  true. 
It  ought  to  be  allowed  the  same  influence  here.  Comp.  Liinemann  on  this 
point,  who  fairly  represents  the  state  of  the  question,  yet  decides  in  favor  of 
tlie  reading  of  the  T.  R.  {(JvyKeKpa/iivog),  solely  on  tlie  ground  that  the  other 
reading  "  conflicts  with  the  context  and  is  nonsense."  Westcott  and  Ilort 
adopt  the  ovvKEKapia/jtvovg.  But  in  their  "  Notes  on  select  readings,"  p.  120, 
having  represented  the  state  of  the  text,  they  s;iy:  "After  much  hesitation,  we 
have  marked  this  very  difficult  pa.ssage,  as  probably  containing  a  primitive 
corruption."  Alford,  adojiting  the  same  reading,  says :  "  The  passage  is  almost 
a  locus  desperatus."  It  is  this  reading  that  has  been  adopted  by  the  Kevision 
of  1881.    Tischendorf  Ed.  viii.  takes  the  other  reading. 


118  THE   WORD   OF    PROCLAMATION  [iv.  2  b. 

but  the  thing  heard,  "  announcement."  ^  "  The  word  of  proclama- 
mation,"  says  the  Author  (by  which  he  means  that  which  was 
the  preaching  of  good  tidings  to  those  of  old),  "  did  not  profit 
those  not  combined  with  them  that  heard."  In  this  representa- 
tion he  designates  those  that  were  not  pi'ofited,  and  at  the  same 
time  by  his  descriptive  designation  :  ('*  those  not  combined  by 
faith  with  them  that  heard"),  he  points  to  tlie  reason  why  they 
were  not  profited,  ffu/xspdwu/u  means,  "to  mix,  commingle 
closely  "  (comp.  1  Cor,  xii.  24).  So  describing  those  that  the  word 
did  not  profit,  the  Author  ascribes  the  failure  to  the  lack  of  faith 
in  them ;  and  intimates,  on  the  other  hand,  that  others  heard 
with  profit ;  that  faith,  had  the  former  had  it,  would  have  com- 
bined them  with  the  latter  in  this  profiting.  By  this  is  equally 
implied,  that  faith  was  the  profitable  ingredient  of  the  hearing 
of  "  them  that  heard."  We  have  thus  a  very  pregnant  sentence, 
after  the  manner  of  our  Author,  who  not  seldom  has  recourse  to 
such  breviloquence. 

By  this  rendering,  we  understand  the  Author  to  distinguish 
two  classes  among  those  of  old  that  had  good  tidings  preached 
to  them,  viz.,  those  that  did  not  and  those  that  did  hear  with 
profit.  And  we  understand  him  to  designate  the  latter  by  the 
simple  expression  :  "  them  that  heard."  Both  of  these  notions  have 
been  deemed  inadmissable.  The  former  because,  as  it  is  supposed, 
iii.  16  shows  that  the  Author  allows  of  no  such  distinction;^ 
the  second,  because  in  such  close  conjunction  with  axni;?,  the  fol- 
lowing dxou(Ta/T(y  canuot  mcau  "  to  hearken  or  obey."  ^  To  begin 
with  the  second  objection,  we  remark,  that  the  meaning  "to 
hearken,  or  to  obey,"  is  not  necessary  here,  and  is  not  implied 
by  the  context ;  but  only  "  hearing  with  profit."  In  support  of 
this  meaning  for  nn?  d/.obaaav^^  let  it  be  noticed  that  the  Author's 
Psalm  text,  which  underlies  the  whole  context,  and  is  constantly 
reiterated  (iii.  7,  15;  iv.  7),  means  by:  "if  ye  will  hear  His 
voice "  {axohar^ri),  just  this  genuine,  profitable  hearing.  This, 
then,  ought  to  prescribe  the  sense  in  which  we  are  to  accept 

'  Comp.  Liin.,  Alford,  Del.,  von  Hofmann,  etc,  and  1  Thess.  ii.  13. 

^  So  de  Wette,  Liin.,  Davidson.  ^  So  Liin.,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Lindsay. 


iv.  3  «.]  UNPROFITABLE   TO    UNBELIEVERS.  119 

axoijstv  in  the  context ;  so  that  wliere  that  meaning  is  not  intended 
some  qualifying  words  must  show  it.  And  (to  notice  the  former 
of  the  above  objections)  such  is  the  case  at  iii.  16.  It  must  be 
admitted,  when  attention  is  called  to  it,  that  the  question  :  "who, 
having  heard,  provoked  ?"  suggests  also  the  contrary  question  : 
who,  having  heard,  did  not  provoke  f  And,  following  the  Psalm 
text :  "  To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,"  the  latter  would  be 
described  simply  as  "  them  that  heard  "  {ruhq  axobaavrti).  And 
further,  the  Author's  answer  to  his  own  question  in  iii.  16,  given 
interrogatively  :  "  Nay,  did  not  all  they  that  came  out  of  Egypt 
with  Moses?"  allows  us  (even  if  we  leave  out  of  view  Caleb  and 
Joshua,  as  the  Author  does)  to  think  of  all  the  rest  of  Israel 
that  did  not  come  out  of  Egypt  as  excepted.  And  in  the  end 
these  actually  did  hear  the  word  of  proclamation,  so  as  to  profit, 
as  the  others  did  not.  Moreover,  our  Author  shows  that  he 
does  not  ignore  these  profitable  hearers,  for  at  ver.  8  he  expressly 
refers  to  them  when  mentioning  Joshua's  performance. 

This,  then,  is  the  purport  of  our  verse  2.  Good  tidings  from 
God  are  preached  unto  us  as  well  as  to  them  of  old.  In  this 
respect  the  people  of  God  of  all  time  are  alike.  AYhile  some  of 
old  did  not  profit  by  the  preaching,  as  others  did,  it  was  because 
they  had  not  faith.  Faith  would  have  combined  them  with  those 
that  heard  with  profit.  It  is  to  be  noted,  that,  in  this  represen- 
tation, the  Author  expresses  the  antithesis  only  as,  that  some 
heard  without  profit  and  some  with  profit.  He  does  not  say 
that  the  one  sort  did  not  and  the  other  sort  did  enter  into  the 
rest.  In  fact,  none  of  those  that  were  preached  to  entered  in 
(vers.  6).  And  to  the  present  none  have  entered  into  that  rest 
(corap.  xi.  13,  39,  40).  Nevertheless,  then  and  since,  those  that 
heard  in  faith  held  a  very  different  relation  to  the  promised  rest 
from  those  that  heard  without  faith.  The  preaching  profits  the 
former ;  it  does  not  profit  the  latter.  The  profit  of  the  former 
is,  that  while  they  hear  believingly  they  still  have  left  a  promise 
of  entering  into  God's  rest.  The  profit  of  faith  is  even  more 
than  this,  as  appears  by  the  statement  of: 

Ver.  3,  a.     For  we  enter  into  the  rest  who  believed. 

The  connection  denoted  by  :  For  is  with  the  foregoing  verse. 


120  WE   WHO   HAVE   BELIEVED  [iv.  3  6-5. 

especially  the  latter  clause  of  it.  But  it  attaches  to  what  we  have 
noted  is  implied  as  the  affirmative  contrary  of  what  is  there 
denied.  We  may  paraphrase  the  connection  thus  :  "  The  word 
of  proclamation  profited  them  that  heard  it  believingly.  For  we 
enter  into  the  rest  who  believed."  Thus  our  ver.  3  a  explains 
what  the  profiting  is,  viz.,  entering  the  rest. 

The  Author  says:  "For  we  enter;"  not:  For  they  enter, 
which  most  readers  expect  to  read.  But  he  says  "  we,"  because 
in  ver.  2  a,  he  has  just  comprehended  all  hearers  of  "  the  voice 
of  God  "  (iii.  7),  in  one  class  without  regard  to  times.  His  "  we  " 
means  "  the  people  of  God  "  (ver.  9).  "  We  enter,"  expressed 
in  the  present  tense,  sets  forth  the  truth  in  the  abstract  as  the 
consequence  of  believing  ;  while  "  believed  "  (aorist)  is  said  with 
reference  to  the  preaching,  which  is  represented  as  in  tlie  past 
(j  kuyoii  r^9  axuT^<s).  When  the  announcement  was  made,  then,  it 
was  believed. 

The  Author's  statement,  ver  3  a,  taken  with  ver.  2,  affirms, 
that  they  who  hear  the  gospel  believingly  enter  into  the  rest.  He 
proceeds,  in  support  of  this,  to  show  that  the  promise  of  rest  is 
still  in  force  (ver.  3  6-10).  This  is  his  main  proposition  of  ver. 
1 :  "  there  is  a  promise  left  of  entering  into  his  rest."  Though 
the  proof  of  this  first  begins  here,  vers.  2,  3  o,  cannot  be  treated 
as  parenthetical.  For  the  fact  that  the  promise  is  still  in  force 
would  be  nothing  without  the  fact  that  good  tidings  are  still  pro- 
claimed to  us.  The  Author's  tchole  proposition  is  :  there  is  left  a 
promise  of  entering  into  his  rest,  and  the  offer  of  it  is  made 
to  us. 

Continuing,  then,  in  close  connection  by  using  "even  as" 
(za>9tw9),  he  says  : 

Ver.  3  6.  Even  as  he  hath  said :  As  I  sware  in  my  wrath : 
They  shall  not  enter  into  my  rest ;  althong-h  the  works  were  finished 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  4.  For  he  hath  said  somewhere 
of  the  seventh  [day]  on  this  wise :  And  God  rested  on  the  seventh 
day  from  all  his  works ;  5.  and  in  this  [place]  again :  They  shall 
not  enter  into  my  rest. 

The  Apostle's  argument  in  this  comparison  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment passages  is  evident  enough.     It  is  intended  to  show,  that 


iv.  3  b-b]  DO    ENTER   THE    REST.  121 

God's  rest  is  something  that  continues.  "  It  remains  "  (/irToXstTz^rat), 
is  his  own  way  of  stating  the  couchision,  vcr.  6.  Quoting  again 
his  Psahii  text,  he  calls  attention  to  how  it  signifies  that  in 
Moses'  time  an  offer  was  made  of  entering  God's  rest.  "My 
rest,"  is  the  significant  expression,  which  the  Apostle  takes  in 
its  most  literal  sense  as  that  ichcrein  God  i-ests.  And  in  the  entire 
context  he  uses  "rest,"  both  as  substantive  and  verb,  with  this 
meaning,  except  only  in  ver.  10.^  Thus  he  reads  the  Psalm 
differently  from  any  other  reader.  The  ordinary  reader  could 
only  understand  the  possessive  :  "  My  rest,"  as  meaning  that  rest 
which  God  had  to  give  his  people,  in  which  they  might  rest.  And 
by  reference  to  Num.  xiv.  23,  30 ;  Dent.  i.  35 ;  xii.  9,  the  ordi- 
nary reader  ^  infers  that  "  my  rest "  refers  to  the  promised  land. 
But  the  Apostle  evidently  identifies  "my  rest"  with  the  rest 
wherein  "  God  rested  the  seventh  day  from  all  His  works,"  Gen. 
ii.  2,  and  thus  assumes  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
(iii.  7)  speaking  in  his  Psalm  text.  He  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  God's  works  were  done  when  He  finished  the  creation,  and 
He  rested  then.  Quoting  Gen.  ii.  2,  he  shows  that  this  is  God's 
rest.  Comparing  with  this  his  Psalm  text,  he  shows  that, 
according  to  the  Psalm,  the  promise  of  rest  was  offered  in  INIoses' 
time,  and  that  it  was  a  promise  of  participation  in  the  rest 
wherewith  God  rested.  This  occurring  so  long  after,  shows  that 
God's  rest  is  a  continuing  thing,  something  that  "  remains." 
The  inference  presented  is  not,  that  it  did  remain  till  the  time 
of  Moses,  but  that,  remaining  till  the  time  of  INIoses,  it  is  some- 
thing that  remains  always.  Moreover,  the  language  appealed  to 
shows  at  the  same  time  that  God's  rest,  begun  on  the  seventh 
day,  remains  as  something  He  offers  to  share  with  them  that 
believe. 

Instead  of  formally  drawing  these  evident  conclusions  from 
the  passages  he  has  collated  to  that  effect,  the  Author  proceeds 
to  present  them  as  premises  for  a  further  inference,  viz.,  his  main 
proposition,  that  there  is  now  a  promise  of  entering  "  that  rest " 
(ver.  11). 

^  Comp.  Davidson,  in  loc,  and  especially  the  reflective  note,  p.  97  sqq. 
^  Comp.  Hengstenberg,  J.  A.  Alexander  on  Psalm  xcv.  11. 


122  THE   REST  CONTINUES   TO   CE.  [iv.  6  a. 

Yer.  6  a.  Since  then  it  [the  rest]  remains  for  persons  to  enter 
into  it, 

It  is  thus,  the  Author,  by  one  expression,  presents  (a)  the 
double  inference  from  the  foregoing,  viz.,  that  the  rest  remains, 
and  that  it  is  for  persons  to  enter,  and  (6)  premises  (marlved  by 
"  since  "  iirei)  for  further  inference.  He  says,  "  it  remains,"  in 
the  simplest  meaning  of  aTtoXd-zrat,  "  to  be  left  as,  or  where  it 
was;"  as  Paul  says :  ''I  left  {a-iXntov)  my  cloak  at  Troas,  with 
Carpus"  (2  Tim.  iv.  13).  He  says,  "it  remains"  in  the  same 
sense  that  he  says,  using  the  same  word,  that  "there  remains  a 
keeping  of  Sabbath  "  (ver.  9),  and  that  "  there  remains  no  more 
a  sacrifice  for  sins  "  (x.  26).  He  says  "  it "  {the  rest)  remains. 
For  y;  xardTzaumg  is  the  Subject  of  the  verb,  not  only  because  it 
reigns  over  the  whole  context  as  the  chief  notion  discoursed  on, 
but  also  because  it  is  actually  expressed  in  the  foregoing  clause 
of  ver.  5,  It  needs  no  more  to  be  expressed  than  the  subject  of 
drziXcTTov,  2  Tim.  iv.  13.  He  says  in  a  universal  way  :  "  for  per- 
sons to  enter  in."  For  so  rcyd'?  is  to  be  taken  here,  as  in  Rom. 
iii.  8,  and  often.^  There  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  justify  the 
very  common  notion,  that  the  Author  means  to  say  emphatically, 
that  some  must  enter  in,^  or  (to  express  it  diiferently),  "  The 
table  of  the  Lord  shall  not  want  guests ;  God  will  bring  men  to 
the  rest."  ^ 

Th  this  premise  is  joined  a  second,  still  connected  with  the 
"since"  {i-s()  that  introduces  the  first  clause  of  our  ver,  6. 

Ver.  6  b.  And  they  to  whom  good  tidings  were  before  preached 
did  not  enter  in  because  of  disobedience, 

If  it  were  the  Apostle's  purpose,  in  mentioning  this  with  the 
foregoing,  to  represent  that,  since  some  must  enter,  and  these  did 
not,  therefore,  God  set  another  day  so  as  to  have  some  enter.  He 
would  not  add  that  "  because  of  disobedience  "  they  entered  not 
(comp.  iii.  19).  This  cause  of  their  not  entering  is  precisely  the 
point  of  the  present  mention.  It  resumes  the  statement  of  ver. 
2  b,  and  pairs  it  with  the  other  result  obtained,  viz.,  that  the  rest 
remains  for  persons  to  enter.     Since  disobedience,  and  not  that 

^  See  Grimm's  Lex.,  sub  voc.  ^  So  Alford. 

^So  Lindsay;  similarly  Stuart,  McLean,  Davidson. 


iv.  7.]       GOD  RENEWS  HIS  CALL  TO  ENTER.         123 

the  rest  beeame  non-existent,  was  the  reason  of  their  exchision 
who  were  first  preached  to,  the  promise  of  the  rest  may  be 
extended  to  others.  And  having  stated  these  premises,  the 
Author  immediately  points  to  the  fact  that  it  was  so  extended, 
and  is  still,  saying  : 

Ver.  7.  Again  he  sets  a  day,  To-day,  in  David  saying  after  so 
long  a  time,  as  was  said  above :  To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice, 
harden  not  your  hearts. 

In :  "  He  sets  a  day,"  ^  neither  6/jt^et  nor  rr^d  implies  such  a 
notion  of  special  limitation  as  is  expressed  by  the  rendering  : 
"  deiineth  a  certain  day."  ^  nvd  ijiiipav  =  "  a  day  "  is  in  apposition 
with  atjtitpov  =  "To-(\•^^y"  and  T:poeipr,rat  refers  to  the  Author's 
own  mention  of  it  at  iii.  7,^  and  is  equivalent  to :  "  as  I  said 
before." 

The  long  interval  from  the  seventh  day  of  creation  to  the 
Exodus,  and  the  oifer  at  the  latter  period  of  entering  God's  rest, 
show  that  this  rest,  as  a  rest  for  persons  to  enter,  remains.  Now, 
by  appeal  again  to  his  Psalm  text,  the  Apostle  shows  that  "  in 
David"  (which  means  in  inspired  words  (iii.  7),  commonly 
ascribed  to  David,  as  by  the  LXX.  ;  but  means,  in  effect  and  par- 
ticularly, in  David's  *  day,  as  the  clause  :  "  after  so  long  a  time  " 
shows,)  the  offer  oj  entering  that  rest  is  made  again.  For  such 
is  the  point  of  our  ver.  7  ;  not  that  this  long  interval  shows  that 
the  rest  remains.  This  latter  has  been  proved.  The  "To-day" 
of  the  Psalm  is  the  day  of  grace  since  it  was  uttered.  And, 
"  To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  heart,"  by 
the  Apostle's  exposition,  sets  this  day  as  a  time  when  one  may 
enter  the  rest ;  and,  as  a  voice  of  God  calling  to  us,  it  is  a 
promise  to  us  of  entering  His  rest.  And  this  proves  the  proposi- 
tion announced  in  ver.  1 .     "  There  is  a  promise,"  etc. 

Having  now  followed  the  Author's  reasoning  from  ver.  1,  to 
this,  its  result,  we  note  that  nothing  in  it  bears  on  the  notion  of 
failing  to  attain  that  rest ;  but  everything  here  said  shows,  tliat 
there  is  left  a  jiromise,  and  how  it  becomes  operative.     This, 

*  So  de  Wette,  Liin.,  et.  al ,  render.     On  dplCei  conip.  Acts  vii.  26. 

^  Revision  of  1881.  ^  So  Calvin,  de  Wette. 

'  Against  Davidson,  p.  87,  who  assigns  the  Psalm  to  tlie  pcriotl  of  captivity. 


124  "my  REST:"  PS.  xcv.  11.  [iv.  7. 

then,  bears  out  the  rendering :  "  lest  any  one  of  you  should 
suppose  he  is  too  late  for  it." 

The  most  remarkable  thing  in  the  foregoing  exposition  by  the 
Apostle  (iv.  1-7)  is  his  identifying  "  the  rest "  called  in  the  Ps. 
xcv.  11  "my  rest,"  with  God's  resting  referred  to  Gen.  ii.  2,  and 
that  he  does  so  without  any  notice  of  the  fact  that  no  one  else 
had  so  read  the  words.  This  latter  fact,  because  he  seems  to 
read  as  if  he  supposed  every  one  must  so  read,  misleads  his  inter- 
preters, and  induces  the  effort  to  understand  him  in  some  way 
consistent  with  the  common  way  of  reading  Ps.  xcv.  Yet 
penetrating  minds  easily  discover  the  impossibility  of  doing  so, 
and  resort  to  other  expedients.  Calvin  calls  the  Author's  man- 
ner in  this  passage  :  "embellishing,"  (exornare  incepit),  in  contrast 
with  his  manner  in  iii.  7-19,  which  he  calls  treating  the  Psalm 
text  literally,  i.  e.,  "  in  its  genuine  sense."  And  he  compares  the 
present  manner  of  the  Author  to  what  he  calls  Paul's  way  of 
working  up  {iTte^syaffia)  a  text.  Yet,  spite  of  what  he  says  in 
justificatiou  of  the  performance  he  imputes  to  the  Apostle,  this 
view  of  the  passage  makes  it  little  better  than  blowing  bubbles 
with  the  w^ater  of  life.  Moreover,  such  a  view  could  only  en- 
courage the  "torturing"  of  the  passage  of  which  Calvin  com- 
plains as  so  common.  For  what  the  Apostle  is  supposed  to  allow 
himself,  others  will  try  to  imitate. 

If  the  Author's  manner  of  introducing  scripture  here  were  in 
the  free  way  that  we  observe  in  chap.  i.  4  sqq. ;  ii.  11-13,  viz., 
without  formal  citation  and  without  exposition,  we  might  admit 
such  a  view  as  Calvin's.  But  it  is  impossible  to  suspect  him  of 
taking  such  liberties,  as  would  appear  in  the  present  case,  with 
scripture  that  he  introduces  with  the  solemn  words  :  "  As  saith 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  (iii.  7).  His  concluding  words,  (iv.  7),  in 
taking  leave  of  his  Psalm-text :  "  As  was  said  above.  To-day," 
etc.,  show  that  from  iii.  7-iv.  7,  he  treats  it  in  the  same  earnest 
spirit  and  with  the  same  regard  for  its  genuine  sense  that  Calvin 
recognizes  in  iii.  7—19. 

It  is  better  to  understand  that  the  Apostle  reads  the  Psalm 
correctly,  and  that  by  the  words  :  "  my  rest "  the  Holy  Spirit, 
meant  the  rest  with  or  in  which  God  rests,  though  all  other 


iv.  7.]  THE    MEANING   REVEALED.  125 

readers  had  failed  to  see  it.  Paul  also  read  the  phrases  :  "  my 
righteousness,"  "thy  righteousness,"  and  the  like  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, where  the  possessiv^e  pronoun  refers  to  God,  in  away  different 
from  all  that  read  before  him,  of  whom  we  have  knowledge. 
Before  his  reading,  such  expressions  were  universally  supposed 
to  mean  a  righteousness  that  was  God's  exclusively,  as  in  Ps. 
xcv.  11:  "  My  rest "  was  supposed  to  mean  a  rest  that  was 
man's  exclusively,  so  far  as  the  enjoyment  of  the  rest  was  con- 
cerned. 

Let  us  suppose  that  in  Rom.  i.  16  sqq.,  Paul  had  written  in 
this  fashion  :  "  Let  us  fear  lest  some  of  you  may  be  ashamed  of 
the  gospel,  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation,  to  the  Jew 
and  also  to  the  Greek.  For  therein  is  revealed  a  righteousness 
of  God,  as  saith  the  Holy  Spirit :  The  Lord  hath  made  known 
his  salvation,  his  righteousness  hath  he  openly  showed  in  the 
sight  of  the  heathen."  Thus  he  read  Ps.  xcviii.  as  no  one  ever 
thought  of  understanding  "  his  righteousness."  It  is  as  like  as 
not,  that,  when  writing  Rom.  i.  16,  17,  Paul  had  in  mind  Ps. 
xcviii.  3,  as  any  other  Old  Testament  scripture.  ^  Old  Testa- 
ment scripture  obviously  underlies  what  he  says ;  and  it  is  such 
as  speaks  of  God's  righteousness.  He  says  the  gospel  reveals 
{Iv  avT(l)  dTToxahjTZTsrac)  that  righteousness.  As  we  follow,  while 
he  gives  the  gospel,  we  see  that  such  is  indeed  the  fact.  It  is 
nothing  less  than  a  new  revelation  of  the  righteousness  of  God, 
when  we  see  that  it  is  something  imputed  to  us,  though  he  shows 
that  it  was  there  in  the  Old  Testament.     It  was  there  unrevealed. 

In  the  hands  of  our  inspired  Author,  "  My  rest "  of  Ps.  xcv.  11, 
also  unfolds  with  a  glory  previously  unsuspected.  This,  too,  is  a 
revelation,  as  well  as  the  other,  and  we  have  it  through  the  same 
gospel.  It  is  another  reason  for  not  being  ashamed  of  that 
gospel.  It  is  something  like  being  so  ashamed,  when  one  demurs 
to  the  meaning  the  Apostle  attaches  to  "  my  rest,"  because  no 
one  ever  before  so  read.     We  may  expect  revelation  from  him. 

Paul  secures  prevalence  for  his  intei-pretation  of  "  God's  right- 
eousness," by  the  fullness  and  point  of  his  discourse  about  it. 
Yet  we  may  remember,  that  we  owe  our  understanding  of  it  to 

^See  Analytical  Comm.  on  Bom.,  Rev.  John  Forbes,  LL.D.,  p.  113, 


126  GOD    EESTED   THE    SEVENTH    DAY.  [iv.  7. 

one  man,  on  whose  authority  we  accept  it  as  an  inspired  interpre- 
tation of  the  Old  Testament  truth.  We  may  reflect,  too,  that  it 
would  have  been  just  as  true  had  Paul  announced  it  but  once, 
and  as  briefly,  as  the  truth  regarding  "  God's  rest "  is  announced 
in  the  passage  before  us.  Let  us  accord  the  same  authority  to 
the  present  inspired  interpretation.  Had  the  New  Testament 
been  as  largely  written  for  Christian  Jews  as  for  Christian 
Gentiles,  we  might  have  had  more  about  God's  promised  rest. 
AYhat  we  have  is,  anyway,  as  clear  and  unmistakable  as  any 
single  passage  taken  by  itself,  that  treats  of  the  righteousness  of 
God,  or  of  the  state  of  redeemed  souls  after  the  present  life. 

That  the  Author  does  not  comment  on  the  false,  or  rather 
imperfect  reading  of  his  Psalm  text  that  was  universal,  need 
occasion  no  surprise.  Where,  in  the  many  passages  wherein  he 
discourses  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  does  Paul  take  such  notice 
of  the  corresponding  ignorance  of  that  ?  Finally,  it  ill-becomes 
anyone  to  assume  against  the  Author,  that  the  universal  way  of 
reading  must  be  correct,  or  that  it  is  a  very  important  consider- 
ation in  such  a  matter  of  interpretation,  when  we  see  how  gener- 
ations have  read  texts  in  a  fashion  that  has  only  been  corrected 
lately,  and  is  now  universally  conceded  to  have  been  false  (comp. 
e.g.  ii.  16.) 

Let  iLs,  then,  take  the  Apostle's  interpretation  of  "  my  rest " 
as  correct  on  his  authority.  Grammatically  and  logically  it  has 
nothing  against  it.  Once  the  difficulty  of  adopting  it  is  sur- 
mounted, all  the  rest  of  his  reasoning  from  it  is  as  plain  as  any 
other  New  Testament  comment  on  Old  Testament  scripture.  He 
himself  shows  by  appeal  to  Gen.  ii.  2,  (which  we  know  is  often 
referred  to  in  the  scriptures,  and  notably  in  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment,) that  there  is  a  rest  of  God's  own.  INIoreover,  when 
attention  is  called  to  it,  we  notice  that  the  Psalmist's  phrase  "  my 
rest "  is  peculiar  and  even  unique,  as  applied  to  the  events  in  the 
wilderness.  It  has  no  equivalent  in  the  original  records,  as  e.  g. 
Num.  xiv.  23,  30 ;  Deut.  i.  35 ;  xii.  9.  As  the  expression  is 
actually  original  with  the  Psalmist,  so  it  might  mean  to  express 
what  was  never  before  expressed,  viz.,  just  what  the  Apostle 
takes  it  to  mean.     And  this  sense  might  be  adopted  in  the  other 


iv.  7.]  BELIEVERS    ARE   TO   SHARE   THAT    REST.  127 

instances  of  using  the  same  form  of  expression,  and  be  found 
greatly  to  enrich  the  meaning  of  those  passages  (comp.  Ps.  cxxxii. 
8,  14 ;  Isa.  xi.  10 ;  Ixvi.  1). 

And  what  we  have  as  the  result  is  a  glorious  doctrine.  Jewish 
piety  without  our  passage,'  and  Christian  piety  with  the  aid  of 
it,  have  entertained  the  notion  of  a  heavenly  rest  after  this  world 
that  is  to  be  an  eternal  Sabbath.  But  here  it  is  revealed  that  we 
are  to  enter  God's  own  rest  wherein  He  rested  when  the  creation 
was  done.  We  are  to  rest  with  Him,  rest  as  He  rests,  and  with 
His  rest.  This  is  "  the  heavenly  calling  "  (iii.  1).  When  God 
gave  the  promise  to  Abraham,  and  renewed  it  to  those  led  forth 
from  Egypt,  it  was  to  this  rest  he  was  calling  them.  In  con- 
nection with  giving  them  Canaan  he  would  have  realized  this 
promise.  There  is  no  reason  for  not  accepting  this  inference,  if 
we  pause  there.  It  presents  no  greater  difficulty,  it  presents,  in 
fact,  the  identical  notion  that  is  suggested  by  our  Lord's  words 
of  lament  over  Jerusalem  :  "  If  thou  hadst  known  in  this  day, 
even  thou,  the  things  which  belong  unto  peace,"  Luke  xix,  42 ; 
"  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even 
as  a  hen  gathereth  her  own  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye 
would  not,"  Luke  xiii.  34.  What  would  have  been,  had  the  Jews 
accepted  their  Messiah  ?  How  differently  in  time  and  circum- 
stances would  have  been  realized  the  promise  of  entering  into  his 
rest !  Beyond  that  we  cannot  go.  This  is  what  is  intended 
when  good  tidings  are  preached  now  unto  us  (vcr.  2).  It  will 
continue  to  be  so  as  long  as  we  have  the  voice  of  God  saying : 
"To-day."  A  most  important  consideration  involved  in  this 
doctrine  is,  that  it  reveals  the  unity  of  "  the  people  of  God " 
(ver.  9)  of  all  ages.  They  have  one  "  heavenly  calling"  (ver.  1) 
and  are  under  the  same  divine  discipline.  And — which  is  the 
special  application  of  the  doctrine  in  the  present  context — it 
shows  that  unbelief  and  disobedience  will  be  attended  with  the 
same  sort  of  punishment  as  fell  on  those  "  whose  members  fell  in 
the  wilderness,"  iii.  17.  For  having  established  the  truth  tliat 
"there  is  left  a  promise  of  entering  into  his  rest,"  the  Apostle  at 
ver.  11  exhorts  :     "  Let  us  give  diligence  to  enter  into  that  rest," 

'  See  in  Del.  and  Alford  the  presentation  of  this. 


128  JOSHUA   GAVE   NOT   THAT   REST,  [iv.  8. 

and  then  adds  the  warning :  "  that  no  one  fall  in  the  same 
example  of  disobedience," 

It  is  not  quite  true  that  the  Author  takes  no  notice  of  the 
erroneous  ways  of  reading  his  Psalm  text.  He  has  already 
reflected  one  of  them  in  ver.  2  b.  For,  supposing  that  "  my 
rest "  meant  more  than  the  land  of  promise,  the  inference  might 
be,  that  "  the  oath :  they  shall  not  enter  my  rest,"  ended  that 
rest  by  withdrawing  the  promise  of  it.  This  mistaken  notion 
has  been  corrected.  But  on  the  other  hand,  supposing  "my 
rest "  to  mean  only  the  promised  land,  it  would  be  thought  that 
those  whom  Joshua  led  into  Canaan,  did  enter  the  rest.  There- 
fore, as  a  promise  fulfilled,  there  can  now  be  no  promise  of  enter- 
ing into  that  rest.  It  is  to  this  notion  that  vers.  8-10  are 
directed,  and  they  are  only  supplementary  to  the  previous  reason- 
ing. They  add  nothing  to  that  finished  argument,  but  only  fortify 
it  against  the  misapprehension  that  "  the  rest "  was  wholly  a 
thing  of  the  past. 

Ver.  8.  For  if  Joshua  gave  them  rest,  he  would  not  speak  after 
that  of  another  day. 

By  this  statement  the  Author  represents  (hypothetically,  et)  a 
situation  when  it  would  be  too  late  for  a  promise  of  entering  the 
rest.^ 

But  his  appeal  to  his  Psalm  text,  wherein  God  (for  God  is  the 
subject  of  "would  speak")  does  speak  of  another  day,  carries  with 
it  the  proof  that  what  Joshua  did  was  no  giving  rest  in  the  sense 
of  "  entering  my  rest."  The  supposed  case  did  not  exist.  When 
our  verse  8  says  :  "  if  Joshua  gave  them  rest  {y.aziT:av(T£-J)  it  means 
by  :  "  to  give  rest "  just  what  the  Author  understands  the  Psalm 
to  mean  by  :  "  my  rest,"  and  that  Joshua  did  not  give  that  rest 
(ver.  11). 

When  it  says  :  "  God  speaks  of  another  day,"  we  are  not  to 
understand  this  as  if  it  in  any  way  expressed  the  notion  of  speak- 
ing of  "  another  rest."  This  impression  is  a  common  one. 
Some  ^  suppose  the  Author  in  vers.  1-10  discourses  expressly 
of  three  rests,  viz.,  of  the  seventh  day,  of  Canaan,  and  of  eternal 
rest ;  and  they  treat  the  "  speaking  of  another  day  "  as  expressing 

'  So  von  Hof.  '  e.  g.  McLean,  Lindsay. 


iv.  9.]  FOR   SABBATH-KEEPING    CONTINUES.  129 

the  notion  of  another  rest.  Thus  they  interpret :  "  If  Joshua, 
in  giving  them  rest,  hud  given  them  all  that  rest  wliich  God 
intended,  God  would  not,"  etc.  The  only  meaning  of  "another 
day,"  is  another  opportunity  of  embracing  the  promise  (one  and 
the  same)  of  entering  the  rest  (one  and  the  same)  oifcred  before. 

The  statement  of  ver.  8  involves  the  denial,  that  what  Joshua 
did  was  a  giving  of  rest  in  the  sense  of  "  my  rest "  in  the  Psalm. 
But  there  is  still  another  sense  in  which  the  "  entering  my  rest " 
might  be  supposed  to  be  fulfilled  by  God,  and  thus  that  it  would 
be  too  late  for  a  promise  of  entering  his  rest.  God  had  given 
the  Sabbath  day  to  rest  as  He  rested.  This  notion,  if  it  existed 
in  his  readers,^  is  counteracted  by  the  statement  of  vers.  9,  10. 

Ver.  9.  Then  there  remains  keeping  the  Sabbath  day  to  the 
people  of  God. 

This  statement,  introduced  by  apa,  connects  as  an  inference 
with  the  foregoing  verse,  and  particularly  with  the  negative 
notion  presented  there,  viz.,  that  entering  Canaan  was  not  enter- 
ing :  "  My  rest."  It  is  a  sudden  and  impromptu  inference,  such 
as  apa  is  used  to  introduce,^  that  comes  up  much  as  a  coincidence 

'  Whether  this  conception  may  be  imputed  to  the  Authoi-'s  contemporaries 
may  be  doubted.  But  that  it  can  be  entertained  by  Christian  scholars,  while 
studying  the  passages  before  us,  is  illustrated  by  McLean,  Lindsay,  etc.  This 
fact  makes  it  at  least  probable  that  the  Author  felt  called  on  to  deal  with  it  in 
his  readers. 

*  The  rendering  of  ver.  9,  given  above,  is  a  departure  from  what  is  tradi- 
tional, and  it  is  proper  that,  besides  letting  it  speak  for  itself,  we  notii'e  the 
reasons  for  rejecting  the  common  interpretation. 

(L)  It  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  that  apa  is  never  used  to  introduce  the 
conclusion  of  an  extended  argument.  As  a  conjunction,  it  keeps  near  its 
adverbial  force,  whirh  "  expresses  the  intimate  connection  and  coincidence  of 
two  notions,"  Jelf,  Gramm.  ?  787,  1 ;  comp.  Kiihner,  ^  509,  1.  "It  expresses 
an  inference  made  from  a  foregoing  thought  as  something  well-established.  In 
itself  apa  has  no  syllogistic  meaning ;  this  lies  rather  in  the  context,  as  a 
whole."  Kiihner,  ^  54-5,  1.  Excellent  normal  examples  of  its  use  arc  Matt, 
xvii.  26,  "Then  are  the  children  free;"  Luke  xi.  20,  "  IVicw  (Version  1611, 
no  doubt)  is  the  kingdom  of  God  come  upon  you."  It  may  most  always  be 
best  rendered  by,  "tiien."  It  refers,  in  every  other  instance  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  something  expressed  immediately  before  (comp.  Rom.  vii.  25;  viii.  1). 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  in  any  Greek  it  can  be  found  introducing  the  con- 
clusion  of  an  extended  argument.     Yet  the  common  interpretation  of  our 

9 


130  ^P"-'  <y«i5/5ar£fl-/io?.  [iv,  9. 

of  notion,  though  stated  syllogistically.  One  notion  involves 
the  other.  The  fact  that  entering  Canaan  was  not  entering  God's 
rest,  explains  the  continued  existence  of  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath  day.  And  the  continuance  of  Sabbath  keeping  is  evi- 
dence that  the  true  rest  has  not  been  attained.  aa[ifiari(TiJ.6<;  means, 
"  observance  of  the  Sabbath."  Tlie  Author  says  this  observance 
"remains"  ('i-"/3:£'-sra:)  in  the  same  simple  sense  of  the  word 

verse  makes  it  introduce  a  very  triumphant  conclusion  of  reasoning  that 
extends  through  eight  verses  preceding. 

(2.)  Supposing  the  common  interpretation  correct,  that  makes  c!a,3(3aT. 
another  expression  for  God's  rest,  the  conclusion  so  announced  would  be  rhe- 
torically and  logically  weak.  All  through  an  extended  argument,  the  subject 
has  been  uniformly  referred  to  by  one  name,  KardTvamig,  and  in  the  conclusion 
it  is  referred  to  by  another  totally  different,  and  that  a  word  that  occurs  no 
where  else  previous  to  this  writing  and  only  once  in  contemporary  writers 
(viz.,  Plut.  Morals,  de  superstitwne,  c.  3),  and  a  word  that  has  a  meaning  of  its 
own  quite  difierent.  Who  would  so  announce  a  grand  conclusion  ?  Not  the 
Author  of  this  polished  epistle.  It  may  be  supposed  that  the  singularity  of 
the  word  suggests  the  extraordinary  sense.  And  interpreters  render  ver.  9 : 
"  There  remains,  therefore,  a  Sabbatism,"  and  fancy  that  it  sounds  well  and 
suggestive.  Yet  they  overlook  the  fact  that  they  need  to  explain  this  singular 
English  expression.  And  our  Author  would  need  to  do  the  same  if  his  word 
were  as  singular.  But  it  is  not  conclusive  that  (ya(i(iaTia/i6g,  because  it  is  not 
found  in  LXX.,  Philo.  or  Josephus,  was  an  unusual  word  to  his  readers.  It  is  as 
reo-ularly  formed  as  hpraciio^,  (iaTrriauog.  Its  use  by  Plutarch  proves  that  it 
was  a  current  word  with  only  an  ordinary  meaning.  It  is  quite  gratuitous  to 
suppose  our  Author  coins  it.  (Against  Bleek).  In  Christian  writers  it  is  of 
common  enough  occurrence,  and  used  in  its  simple  meaning  only,  exce^^t  in 
comments  on  our  text,  and  then  its  (supposed)  extraordinary  sense  is  only 
made  plain  by  amplifications.  Justin  uses  it  interchangeably  with  cd(ijiaTa 
i^vMcaeiv  and  oafifiaTii^eiv  [Dial.  c.  Tryph.,  c.  23). 

(3.)  Were  the  common  interpretation  correct,  it  would  not  announce  a  pro- 
per conclusion  to  the  Author's  reasoning.  This  concludes  that  there  remains 
a  rest.  His  proposition  was  (ver.  1),  "there  is  left  a  promise  of  entering  the 
rest."  There  might  be  a  rest,  and  yet  no  promise  of  it  to  the  people  of  God 
now.  Accordingly,  we  have  seen  the  Author  establish  that  the  rest  remains, 
as  a  premise  to  establishing  further,  that  there  is  a  promise  of  it  offered  now. 

(4.)  As  a  conclusion  (and  even  as  a  reiterated  conclusion,  which  no  one  sup- 
poses it  to  be),  our  ver.  9  would  be  flat,  because  the  conclusion  has  been  pre- 
sented already  at  verse  6,  "  there  remains  the  rest  for  persons  to  enter  into  it." 
Moreover,  that  conclusion  is  the  glorious  one  that  Go<fs  rest  remains,  while  this 
would  only  be  a  conclusion  that  a  rest  remains. 

(5.)  Most  decisive  of  all,  aa^fiarujuog  means,  "  to  observe  the  Sabbath." 
This,  of  course,  is  undisputed.     The  only  question  is,  does  the  Author  mean 


iv.  9.]  A    PROOF   TEXT.  131 

noted  at  ver.  6  (comp.  x.  26),  meaning  that  it  was  left  and  so 
remained  as  it  was  before,  an  ordinance  for  "the  people  of  God." 
The  import  of  tliis  is,  that  had  Joshua  given  them  God's  rest, 
observing  Sabbath  day  would  have  ceased.  There  would  have 
been  no  more  keeping  Sabbath  day.  The  force  of  this  reasoning, 
and  the  obviousness  of  it  that  justifies  the  terse  way  in  which  it 
is  conveyed  by  an  euthymeme,  appears  by  comparison  of  x.  26. 

to  use  it  in  an  exalted  sense?  There  is  nothing  to  intimate  that  he  does.  The 
word  must  have  some  history  to  stand  itself  for  such  a  meaning.  But  the  fact 
is,  it  has  no  history  previous  to  its  present  use ;  being  found  in  antecedent 
Greek  literature  only  in  the  one  other  place  mentioned  above.  Or  it  must 
have  such  a  meaning  lent  to  it  in  the  context  by  qualitication,  or  previous  use. 
Of  this  there  is  nothing.  Only  the  assumption,  that  in  this  verse  the  Author 
sums  up  the  result  of  his  reasoning,  has  induced  the  notion  that  he  means  by 
cafiliaT.  the  same  as  God's  rest,  and  thus  that  he  calls  that  rest  a  keeping  of 
Sabbath.  It  is  better  to  do  as  we  have  done ;  seek  a  meaning  for  the  context 
consistent  with  the  primary  and  common  sense  of  the  word. 

(6.)  We  may  ascribe  the  traditional  interpretation  to  something  more  than 
a  mistake.  Here  may  be  found  one  of  the  most  important  effects  of  our  owing 
that  traditional  view  to  Gentile  interpretation.  It  is  obvious  that  the  render- 
ing we  have  given  ver.  9  involves  the  most  important  consequences  concerning 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  It  makes  our  verse  the  most  pointed  New 
Testament  proof  text  for  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Fourth  Command- 
ment. We  have  only  to  represent  to  our  minds  the  apprehension  with  which 
these  consequences  must  be  regarded  by  those  that  now  deny  that  obligation, 
and  we  will  represent  to  ourselves  the  feelings  with  which  Gentile  Christians 
of  the  II.  Century  would  approach  the  statement  of  verse  9.  As  in  the  modern, 
so  in  the  ancient  mind,  the  assumption  would  be  that  the  prima  Jade  meaning 
of  the  words  could  not  be  that  which  was  intended.  Comp.  de  Pressense,  Trois 
Premieres  Sciede,  II.,  chap.  vi.  §  1.  The  ov  oa(ijiaTLC,oiiev  of  Justin  {Dial.  com,. 
Tryphone,  c.  x.).  may  be  taken  as  representing  the  fixed  attitude  of  their  mind 
that  determined  their  interpretation  of  the  scriptures ;  as:  Hoc  est  corpus  mfum, 
chalked  on  the  table  in  the  castle  of  Marburg,  determined  Luther's.  Conse- 
quently, they  would  look  for  another  sense,  to  which  the  allegorizing  and 
imaginative  exegesis  of  that  period  would  easily  accommodate  itself,  with  a 
haughty  disregard  of  any  correction  that  might  be  offered  from  Jewish  Chris- 
tian quarters.  The  traditional  interpretation,  we  may  suppose,  was  the  conse- 
quence. (Comp.  Tertul.  adv.  Judeos,  c.  2 ;  Epiphan.  adver.  haeres,  Lib.  Tom., 
II.  c.  32.) 

Those  that  maintain  the  obligation  of  the  Fourth  Commandment  according 
to  the  "  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,"  will  observe,  that  the  rendering 
now  given  of  vers.  9,  10,  brings  into  the  problem  no  element  that  wa.s  not 
there  before,  except  a  proof  text,  that  more  directly  than  any  other  in  the 
New  Testament,  affirms  the  doctrine  there  taught. 


132  HOW   SANCTIFY    THE   SABBATH.  [iv.  10. 

There  the  Author,  having  set  forth  Christ's  offering  for  sin  once 
for  all,  says  :  "There  remains  {d-oleir.ETat)  no  more  a  sacrifice  for 
sin."  When  the  reality  is  come,  there  is  no  more  use  for  the 
shadow.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  he  represents,  that  because  the 
real  rest  has  never  been  attained,  the  shadow  does  remain.  Thus 
the  Author  appeals  to  the  great  and  significant  and  still-existing 
institution  of  the  Sabbath  day.  As  a  shadow  it  was  evidence 
that  the  substance  had  not  yet  come.  Yet  as  a  shadow,  with 
deep  significance  from  its  connection  with  God's  resting  the 
seventh  day,  it  looks  forward  to  and  is  a  representation  of  the 
promise  of  entering  God's  rest.  The  Author  points  to  this  sig- 
nificance in 

Ver.  10.  For  he  that  entered  its  rest,  he  also  rested  from  his 
works  as  God  from  his  own. 

"  For"  connects  this  statement  with  the  foregoing  as  its  expla- 
nation. In  TTjV  xardirauatv  aoTou,  the  avTou  refers  to  Ga^^ari(TiJ.6<i  of 
ver.  9.  The  aorists  6  eiffsMcuv,  mrir^auat,  "  he  that  entered, 
rested,"  are  perfectly  natural  when  speaking  of  actions  relating 
to  an  institution  of  ancient  date,  thougli  continued  in  the  present. 
It  is  said  here  from  the  view  point  of  entering  Canaan  under 
Joshua,  and  still  keeping  the  Sabbath.  It  is  much  against  the 
rendering  that  takes  r.  xa-dizau.  ad-oo  to  mean,  "  God's  rest,"  that 
it  is  driven  to  various  desperate  shifts  to  explain  these  aorists.  As 
rendered  above,  ver.  10  is  a  simple  statement  of  the  nature  and 
meaning  of  keeping  the  Sabbath.  The  nature  of  it  is,  rest  from 
our  works.  The  meaning  of  this  is  imitation  (w^TTrs/v)  of  God's 
resting.  And  in  this  connection,  it  is  appealed  to  as  an  institu- 
tion that  remains  as  long  as  it  is  true  that  the  people  of  God 
have  not  entered  into  His  rest. 

In  vers.  1-8  the  Apostle  has  showed  that  there  is  left  a  promise 
of  entering  God's  rest,  and  that  while  the  gospel  is  preached  no 
one  is  too  late  for  it.  In  vers.  9,  10,  he  has  adverted  to  two 
supposed  situations  wherein  it  would  be  too  late  for  such  a 
promise,  and  showed  that  they  do  not  exist.  He  has  now  pre- 
pared the  way  for  an  exhortation  which  follows. 

Ver.  11.  Let  us,  therefore,  give  diligence  to  enter  into  that  rest, 
in  order  that  no  one  may  fall  in  the  same  example  of  disobedience. 


iv.  11.]         GIVE    DILIGENCE    TO    ENTER   GOD's    REST.  133 

Thus  the  Apostle  applies  the  truth  just  established,  and  from 
this  appears,  that  his  motive  in  representing  the  doctrine  has  been 
chiefly  to  press  the  application  of  the  warning  example  of  those 
in  the  wilderness. 

This  explains  his  omission  to  amplify  the  glorious  truth  just 
presented,  and  set  forth  its  inviting  aspects.  He  presents  it  in 
order  to  identify  the  present  situation  with  the  ancient  one. 
Then  "  there  was  a  promise  of  entering  liis  rest."  "  To-day  " 
there  is  the  same.  Those  of  old  were  debarred  by  God's  oath 
from  entering  in  on  account  of  their  disobedience,  (iii.  18.) 
Now,  having  established  the  likeness  of  the  two  situations,  the 
Apostle  warns  his  readers  against  the  same  fate.  Thus,  our 
present  verse  connects  closely  in  logical  relation  with  iii.  18,  19. 
What  has  been  represented  iv.  1-10  serves  to  establish  that 
logical  relation. 

This  corroborates  the  interpretation  we  have  given  at  iv.  1. 
The  notion  that  the  Apostle  is  there  warning  against  falling 
short  of  the  promised  rest  would  ill-agree  with  the  unmistakable 
warning  of  our  present  verse.  This,  as  we  shall  see,  points  to 
the  fate  of  divine  exclusion  from  the  rest  and  on  the  ground  of 
disobedience.  The  Author  would  not,  in  the  same  passage, 
ascribe  the  failure  to  enter  the  rest,  first,  to  simply  falling 
short  of  it,  and,  then,  to  a  divine  exclusion  effected  by  a  divine 
judgment,  and  realized  by  a  falling  like  that  in  the  wilder- 
ness. 

The  Author  says  ^/.sr^rjv  rijv  xaraTzauirtv,  that  lest,  viz.,  of  vers. 
5,  G  a.  The  IxsO^rf^  points  to  a  remoter  antecedent  than  "  the 
rest,"  mentioned  in  vcr.  10,^  to  which  latter,  if  the  Author  meant 
it,  he  would  refer  by  rawrvjv.^  Thus,  he  distinguishes,  as  we 
have  interpreted,  between  "  the  rest  of  keeping  the  Sabbath  " 
(ver.  10),  and  "that  rest  that  remains  for  persons  to  enter." 
(ver.  6.)  The  latter,  he  exhorts  his  readers  to  showdiligoiico  in 
entering.  This  diligence  is  put  in  antithesis  to  disobedience, 
and  thus  it  is  plain  that  it  must  appear  in  that  faith  which  ha*; 

'  Comp.  Bleek. 

^  See  Buttm.  Gram.,  p.  104,  and  his  article  on  ekeIvoq  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit^ 
1860.     Comp. Luke  xviii.  14;  John  v.  35,  37,  38. 


134  DISOBEDIENCE   MADE   AN    EXAJIPLE.  [iv.  12. 

already  been  set  in  the  same  contrast  (comp.  vers.  2  and  3). 
The  haste  ^  that  is  implied  in  diligence,  must  be  in  hastening  to 
believe  and  obey  "  the  heavenly  calling "  (iii.  1).  Let  us  give 
diligence,  he  says,  and  we  may  interpret  the  first  person  as  at  ver.  1. 

As  has  been  just  before  noticed,  the  Apostle  does  not  incite  to 
this  diligence  by  motives  of  reward  presented  by  "  the  rest,"  but 
by  motives  of  fear  of  the  consequences  of  disobedience.  This  is 
evidence  that  he  treats  the  situation  as  very  perilous  in  that  direc- 
tion. Those  consequences  are  imminent.  The  first  concern, 
therefore,  is  to  escape  them,  and  he  says :  In  order  that  no  one 
may  fall.  The  verb  TziTZTetv  in  the  present  close  logical  relation 
with  iii.  16-19,  has  its  own  obvious  meaning,  viz.,  n««,  destruc- 
tion.^ It  expresses,  not  that  which  has  ruin  for  result,  but  the 
ruinous  result  itself.  The  nature  of  the  destruction  is  defined  by 
the  expression  :  In  the  same  example  of  disobedience.  The  aurui 
onodeiy/j..  obviously  refers  to  the  representation  of  iii.  17,  18. 
What  the  Apostle  means  is,  to  affirm  that  such  falling  would  be 
just  like  that  of  old :  an  example  of  disobedience,  which  he  is 
warranted  in  saying  after  having,  in  vers.  1-10,  represented  the 
identity  of  the  situations.  Calling  it  "  an  example "  signifies 
that  one  may  see  in  it  how  disobedience  is  punished.^ 

It  is  with  this  notion  of  fallino;  or  ruin  as  now  the  imminent 
peril,  and  with  the  notion  of  that  fall  being  made  an  example  of 
how  disobedience  is  punished,  that  the  representations  of  the 
following  vers.  12,  13,  connect,  being  conjoined  by  For. 

Ver.  12.  For  the  word  of  God  is  living  and  energetic  and 
sharper  than  any  double-edged  sword,  and  piercing  to  division  of 
both  joints  and  marrow  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  a  judge  of  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart. 

By  the  word  of  God  is  meant  no  impersonation,  nor  anything 
kindred  to  the  distinctive  representations  of  John  i.  1-14;  1  John 
i.  1,  2.* 

The  attributes  here  described  belong  to  God,  to  whom,  as  the 
subject,  the  discourse  makes  transition  in  the  following  verse. 

^Vulgate  incorrectly  translates :  festinemus ;  yet  preserves  the  true  notion 
by  the  (also  incorrect)  rendering:  incredulitatis  exemplum. 

2  So  Chrys.,  Calvin,  Bleek,  de  Wette.  ^  go  ^^^  Hof.  *  Alford. 


iv.   12.]  THE    LIVING    WORD    OF   GOD.  135 

By  a  natural  mode  of  speech  these  attributes  are  here  a.scribed  to 
the  word  of  God,  because  God  is  represented  by  that  word,  and 
He  attends  that  word,  j^iving  it  living  and  active  potency.  What 
is  said  here  is  general,  in  the  sense  that  it  may  be  said  of  any 
portion  of  the  word  of  God  that  "  is  preached  of  Jesus  Christ 
unto  obedience  of  faith."  ^  But  here  it  is  said  in  particular  of 
that  word  that  the  Apostle  has  said  is  and  was  preached  (ver.  2), 
and  which  he  calls  :  "  the  word  of  proclamation"  (ibid).  It  is 
the  word  of  his  Psalm  (xcv.)  text  to  which  he  has  particular 
reference,  and  which  he  has  introduced  by  :  "  as  saith  the  Holy 
Spirit "  (iii.  7).  It  is  to  that  word,  as  it  represents  what  was 
proclaimed  to  those  in  the  wilderness  and  is  proclaimed 
still,  and  in  hearing  which  we  hear  the  voice  of  God,  that  he 
calls  further  attention.  He  has  made  it  the  text  for  a  warning 
against  hardness  of  heart  and  perfidy.  He  has  used  it  to  show 
that  God's  voice  still  offers  an  entrance  into  his  rest.  He  uses  it 
once  more,  reminding  his  readers  of  the  tremendous  validity  of 
that  word,  by  saying  of  it  what  is  true  of  God's  word  wherever 
it  demands  obedience,  ^  but  peculiarily  true  of  this  word  of  Ps. 
xcv.,  because  of  the  example  seen  in  the  fate  of  those  who  dis- 
obeyed in  the  wilderness. 

^^^bat  he  proceeds  to  say  of  the  word  of  God  is  supposed  by 
many  to  represent  its  penetrating  and  discriminating  power,  and 
thus,  that  nothing  can  escape  the  knowledge  of  God.  Accord- 
ingly, the  words  soul  and  spirit  and  the  division  of  them,  and  of 
the  joint  and  marrow,  and  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart, 
are  all  weighed  as  if  the  Author  wrote  as  a  philosopher.  And 
thus,  also,  this  passage  is  a])pealed  to  in  psychological  debates,  c.  g., 
by  the  advocates  of  a  trichotomy. 

But  it  is  repugnant  to  a  just  sentiment  that  such  philosophical 
notions  should  be  introduced  into  a  context  like  the  present. 
Moreover,  it  does  not  appear  what  forceful  logical  relation  such 
a  representation  could  have  with  what  precedes.  In  verse  116, 
Nvhether  we  interpret  it  as  above,  or  understand '  it  to  mean 
falling  into  and  remaining  in  what  would  be  an  example  of  dis- 

'  Eom.  xvi.  25,  26.  "^  Comp.  Rom.  ii.  8,  9. 

'  With  von  Ilof.  and  manv  others. 


136  PUNITIVE   ENERGY   OF   THE   WORD.  [iv.  12. 

obedience,  the  situation  it  denotes  is  already  one  of  manifest  dis- 
obedience, and  would  not  put  to  proof  the  discriminating  power 
of  the  word  that  the  Author  is  supposed  to  appeal  to  here.  With 
that  interpretation,  vers.  12, 13  appear  as  an  isolated  eulogy  of  the 
word  of  God ;  and,  in  effect,  such  is  commonly  the  treatment  of  it. 
It  is  more  natural  to  understand  vers.  12,  13  as  describing  the 
executive  power  of  the  word  of  God.  ^  This  is  a  logical  notion  to 
connect  by  For  with  what  precedes,  as  has  been  noticed  above. 
Then  the  language  before  us,  describing  the  living,  irresistible, 
and  unerring  aim  and  power  of  that  word  of  Ps.  xcv.,  that  defines 
the  present  crisis,  shows  how  judgment  is  imminent,  and  why 
diligence  should  be  used  to  enter  the  promised  rest. 

Moreover,  it  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  Author's 
description  runs  in  a  scriptural  mold,  than  in  that  learned  in 
philosophic  schools.  We  are  reminded  of:  "  Is  not  my  word 
like  as  a  fire  ?  saith  the  Lord ;  and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh 
the  rock  in  pieces  ? "  ^  The  type  of  the  Author's  rhetoric  is 
contained  in  that  and  similar  passages.  But  still  more  we  are 
reminded  of  language  in  Moses'  farewell  address,  that  is  so  sig- 
nificant of  the  history  of  the  people  of  God  down  to  the  remotest 
future :  "  For  I  lift  up  my  hand  to  heaven,  and  I  say,  I  live 
forever  "  {Zm  iyu)  el<i  tov  alwva),  "  If  I  whet  my  glittering  sword 
(ttjv  pA^acpdv  /jlou),  and  mine  hand  take  hold  in  judgment ;  I  will 
render  vengeance  to  my  enemies,  and  will  reward  them  that  hate 
me."  Dent,  xxxii.  40,  41.  In  Biblical  rhetoric  the  sword 
expresses  retributive  judgment.  We  must  retain  that  meaning  in 
the  present  passage ;  and  the  more  so  as  it  fits  the  context.  The 
presentation  of  notions  in  couples  :  "  soul  and  spirit,"  "joints  and 
marrow,"  "  thoughts  and  intents,"  shows  that  the  expressions  are 
not  determined  by  any  philosophy  relating  to  such  things.  They 
are  due  to  rhetoric,  and  the  Author,  by  such  double  expressions, 
means  to  cover  the  notion  of  the  whole  spiritual  being  of  man,' 
with  all  its  motives  and  affections.  The  anthropological  under- 
lying notions  involved  in  the  use  of  the  terms  are  popular,  and 
consequently  unscientific.  They  do  not,  therefore,  justify  the 
nice  analysis  to  which  some  interpreters  subject  them. 

*  So  Chrys.,  Bleek.  ^  Jer.  xxiii.  29.  '  Comp.  Davidson. 


iv.  13]  JUDGING    THOUGHTS    AND    INTENTIONS.  137 

The  representations  of  our  vcr.  1 2  bear  on  the  affirmation  that 
the  falling  that  is  imminent  would  be  an  "  example  of  disobe- 
dience" identical  with  that  of  old.  It  points  to  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart  as  that  over  which  God  by  His  word  sits  as 
judge  (xfnrcx6^—"}udge,"  as  one  is  a  judge,  or  critic  of  the 
quality  of,  e.  g.,  poets).  In  this  is  involved  the  notion  of  award. 
In  the  present  situation,  it  is  in  the  domain  of  the  heart  with  its 
thoughts  and  intents,  that  "disobedience"  appears,  and  not  in 
overt  acts  as  in  the  wilderness.  But  God's  word  is  judge  in  that 
province.  As  such.  His  punitive  sword  falls  irresistibly  and 
unerringly  where  there  is  disobedience.  The  joints  and  marrow 
must  be  taken  in  a  spiritual  sense,  as  the  joints  and  marrow  of 
the  soul  and  spirit.^  And  taking  it  so,  we  may,  with  von  Hof- 
mann,  render  4'^x^i'^  ^*  '^veu/xaro^  dp/iajv  rs  xai  iiuzXiLv.  "both  joints  and 
marrow  of  the  soul  and  spirit."  ^  Not  separation  of  body  and 
soul,  or  of  soul  and  spirit  is  meant,  for  /ispc<Tfi6i^  does  not  signify 
separation,  but  division  that  sunders  the  whole  into  parts,  and,  so 
to  speak,  dismembers  soul  and  spirit.  The  Author,  in  pointing 
to  the  ancient  counterpart  of  this  example  of  disobedience, 
mentions  how  :  "  their  carcasses  "  (xw/a,  properly  "  limbs "  or 
"members")  "fell  in  the  wilderness"  (iii.  17). 

Yer.  1 3.  And  there  is  not  a  creature  unseen  before  him,  but 
all  things  are  naked  and  exposed  at  the  throat  to  the  eyes  of  him 
with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

The  Author  by  duzou  (bis),  which  refers  to  God,  expressly 
intimates  that  it  is  not  the  word,  but  God,  to  whom  he  ascribes 
the  personal  attributes  in  what  he  represents  concerning  the 
word  of  God. 

If  our  verse  13  were  part  of  a  representation  of  the  omnis- 

^  So  Alford,  von  Hof.,  Liin. 

*  von  Hof.  supports  this  by  appecil  to  ^anrcaiiuv  6i6axm  vi.  1 ;  tijv  niffriv  tov 
Kvpiov  .  .  .  Tf/g  Jo^>f="  the  faith  of  the  glory  of  our  Lord,"  Jas.  ii.  1,  comp. 
Huther  (Meyer's  Comm.)  previous  to  edit.,  1870.  He  also  urges  that  the  in- 
verted order  of  the  words,  putting  the  dependent  iwx-  k.  ■kvevji.  first,  is  due  to 
emphasis  that  rests  on  them ;  and  cites  6  rpdTTog  tuv  TrahiiiJv  r^g  <pih)ao<l>iag, 
Plato  Protag.  343  B.,  where  ruv  Tvalaiuv  owes  its  position  to  the  tone  resting 
on  it,  (comp.  Stallbaum  in  he).  Davidson  has  the  same  rendering.  Angus 
incorrectly  :  "  Dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joints  and  marrow." 


138        EVERYTHING  READY  FOR  THE  BLOW.     [iv.  13. 

cient  and  searching  power  of  God's  word,  i.  e.,  of  God,  it  does 
not  appear  how  it  helps  out  the  idea  of  verse  12,  or  marks  any 
progress  in  the  thought.  For  that  every  creature  is  manifest 
before  Him  and  all  stripped  and  bared  to  His  eyes,  is  inferior  in  ex- 
pression to  the  description,  ver.  12,  that  the  most  hidden  frame  and 
structure  of  soul  and  spirit  are  penetrated  by  Him.  But  if  vers. 
12,  13,  describe  the  punitive  energy  of  God's  word,  and  so 
amplify  the  notion  of  an  example  of  the  punishment  of  disobe- 
dience, we  have  a  natural  progress  of  thought.  For,  verse  12 
having  represented  the  irresistible  and  unerring  efficacy  of  that 
word  as  a  sword,  our  verse  13  represents  every  creature  as  mani- 
fest to  the  judge  of  the  heart  and  every  tiling  ready  for  the  blow 
of  execution,  as  when  the  condemned  criminal  stands  stripped, 
and  with  bared  neck,  ready  for  the  blow  of  the  sword  to  fall. 
In  other  words,  verse  12  represents  how  annihilating  the  blow 
will  be  when  it  falls,  while  verse  13  represents  that  things  are 
ready  for  the  blow  to  fall.  The  figure  represented  by  Tpayr^liX.^vj 
may  not  admit  of  precise  definition.^  But  all  of  the  proposed 
explanations  (whether  derived  from  the  athlete's  taking  his  adver- 
sary by  the  throat  to  choke  him ;  or  from  the  action  of  slaught- 
ering a  beast ;  or  from  the  Roman  usage  of  exposing  the  face  of 
one  about  to  suffer  punishment),  agree  in  this,  that  the  word 
represents  a  situation  ready  for  complete  overthrow  or  the  fatal 
blow.  It  does  not  seem  possible  for  such  a  word  to  do  service 
in  any  way  as  descriptive  of  how  ever}i:liing  is  open  and  mani- 
fest to  God  as  a  judge.  And  no  wonder  that  commentators  find 
it  difficult  of  explanation  ^vith  that  view  of  our  verse.  Alford 
translates  it,  "  prostrate,"  and  owns  to  dissatisfaction  with  that. 
Delitzsch,  waving  all  archaeological  illustrations  as  of  no 
account,  says :  "  -/ja/Tj/u^tv,  which  undoubtedly  means,  to  sieze 
by  the  throat  and  throw  back  the  head,  receives  here  its  second- 
ary meaning  from  the  context,  and  yet  also  without  entire  loss 
of  the  image,  as  e.g.j  by  taking  Tzzpayrihaiiha  as  simply  equiva- 
lent to  T.zipavzpuiiiha  (Hesych.,  Phavor.,  Peshito),  aperta  (all  the 
Latins),  '  uncovered '  (Luther).  The  meaning  seems  to  be,  that 
whatever  shamefaced  creature  bows  its  head,  and  would  fain 
^  See  in  Alford  the  exegetical  history. 


iv.   13.]  Tpayrr^U'^.zv^.  139 

withdraw  and  cloak  itself  from  the  eyes  of  God,  has  indeed  the 
throat,  as  it  were,  bent  back  before  the  eyes,  and  so  remains  with 
no  possibility  of  escape,  exposed  and  naked  to  their  view."  In 
this  Delitzsch  tacitly  adopts  the  explanation  drawn  from  the 
Roman  custom  of  exposing  criminals,  which  just  before  he  has 
rejected  as  having  "  no  support  from  Greek  literature."  As  he 
remands  us  to  the  context  for  the  sense  in  which  the  ^vord  is  to 
be  taken,  we  find  that  the  context  leads  up  to  the  very  image 
indicated  in  the  Roman  custom.  Its  finding  no  support  in  any 
citation  of  rpayr^ll%ei'j  in  Greek  literature  is  not  fatal  to  this 
explanation.  It  was  a  usage  known  to  those  that  spoke  Greek, 
and  of  which  they  must  speak,  and  this  would  be  the  word  with 
which  to  name  it.  We  may  be  sure  that  aa[-i^ariaij.6h  was  a  word 
of  common  use  long  before  our  Author  wrote ;  yet  we  have  seen 
that  it  first  appears  in  this  epistle,  and  then  in  Plutarch.  We 
may  then  adopt  that  Roman  custom  as  explaining  the  figurative 
use  of  the  word  in  our  text.^  But  the  figure  is  exact,  and  means 
of  the  things  {t.wjto)  referred  to,  that  they  are  in  that  situation 
that  yopyd  ■/..  TpayrjXi(7iLiva  describe  when  applied  to  condemned 
persons,  viz.,  they  are  ready  for  execution. 

The  Author  employs  universal  terms  (zrfVts-,  r,dv-a),  as  in  ver. 
12  he  refers  to  human  spiritual  nature  in  the  abstract,  because 
under  the  universal  the  particular  is  inevitably  comprehended.  He 
employs  the  neuter  {tzwjto)  because,  as  the  previous  discourse 
shows,  it  is  abstract  notions  that  he  has  in  mind  and  not  persons. 
Under  all  things  we  must  comprehend  particularly  "  an  evil  heart 
of  perfidy,  hardening  the  heart,  hearing  the  word  without  faith, 
tempting  God,  disobedience."  The  word  of  God  as  a  sword  of 
vengeance  falls  on  such  things  with  unerring  and  irresistible 
power,  that  misses  nothing.  Wherever  they  are,  they  are  now 
exposed  for  execution. 

The  view  of  vers.  11-13,  now  presented,  is  in  harmony  with 
the  warning  already  given  ii.  1-4.  There  the  motives  for  heed- 
ing the  revelation  spoken  by  the  Son,  are  drawn  from  the  peril 
of  a  situation  of  condemnation  for  past  transgressions  of  the  word 

^  The  followinj?  are  cited  as  adopting  it :  Eisner,  Wolf,  Baumgarten,  Kuiuoel, 
Bretschnelder,  Bleek,  de  Wette. 


140  RESUME   OF  II.    1 IV.    13.  [iv.  14. 

spoken  by  angels,  and  the  need  of  escape  from  impending  pun- 
ishment. In  view  of  that  situation,  the  mission  of  Jesus  is 
called  a  salvation.  Following  that  (ii.  17,  18),  the  grace  and 
efficacy  of  Christ  is  represented  in  that,  as  a  merciful  and  faith- 
ful High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  He  makes  expiation 
for  the  sins  of  the  people.  Here  the  exhortation  is  to  those  that 
are  assumed  to  have  accepted  Christ  as  the  Apostle  of  their  pro- 
fession, and  the  leader  of  their  heavenly  calling.  Accordingly, 
the  motives  for  diligence  in  seeking  to  enter  into  the  rest  to 
which  He  leads,  are  drawn  from  the  peril  that  attends  apostasy. 
This  also  is  represented  as  a  situation  of  impending  wrath.  And 
following  this  again,  the  Apostle  renewedly  directs  attention  to 
Jesus  as  a  High  Priest,  with  express  mention  of  His  being  able 
to  symjiathize  with  infirmities ;  and  we  may  suppose  that  while 
this  is  stated  universally,  there  is  also  a  particular  reference  to 
such  infirmities  of  faith,  tending  to  disobedience,  as  have  been  the 
subject  of  warning,  iii.  7-iv.  13.  With  such  reference  the 
Apostle  adopts  an  inviting  and  encouraging  tone,  and  exhorts  to 
come  to  "the  throne  of  grace,  to  receive  mercy  and  find  grace 
for  timely  help  "  (ver.  1 6).  The  significance  of  the  expression 
timely  help,  is  to  be  found  in  the  present  time  of  writing,  which, 
as  the  Apostle  has  showed,  is  described  by  the  Psalmist :  "  To-day, 
if  ye  will  hear  his  voice  harden  not  your  hearts."  Those  that  expe- 
rience the  hardship  and  temptation  of  such  a  time,  and  have  even 
showed  its  sins  of  unbelief,  and  are  exposed  to  the  executive 
energy  of  the  word  that  has  just  been  represented,  may  come  by 
Christ  to  the  throne  of  grace  and  find  mercy. 

The  Apostle  now  begins  to  treat  the  second  part  of  what  he 
has  called  the  contents  of  the  Christian  confession,^  viz.,  Clirist 
our  High  Priest.     The  discourse  on  this  topic  extends  to  x.  18. 

Ver.  14.  Having  then  a  great  High  Priest  that  has  passed 
through  heaven,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  the  con- 
fession. 

It  is  not  the  Author's  point  to  affirm  the  things  that  are  here 
predicated  of  Jesus.  In  the  present  verse,  and  in  the  foregoing 
context  ^  where  the  same  things  ar®  mentioned  of  Christ,  they  are 

^iu.  1.  M.  l-3;m.  1. 


iv.  14,]  HOLD    FAST  THE   CONFESSION.  141 

not  presented  as  matters  that  need  proof,  or  even  affirmation. 
By  designating  them  at  iii.  1  aud  here  as  the  contents  of  the 
Christian  confession,  the  Author  treats  them  as  the  common 
belief  of  himself  and  his  readers.  Such  being  the  case,  the  con- 
junctive then  cannot  be  referred^  to  ii.  17;  iii.  1,  or  to  the  whole 
context,  i.  1-iii.  6,  as  resumptive  of  what  has  been  there  affirmed, 
viz.,  "  the  elevation  and  grandeur  of  the  person  of  Jesus  in  gen- 
eral." As  between  the  Author  and  his  readers,  these  things  have 
not  been  subjects  of  affirmation;  though  to  us,  who  would  learn 
what  the  Apostle  believed,  they  are  to  be  treated  as  affirmations 
of  doctrine.  Nothing  having  been  affirmed  on  these  subjects  as 
premise,  the  "then"  cannot  introduce  a  logical  inference  about 
them,  nor  logically  resume  their  affirmation.^  The  sentiments 
of  vers.  11-13,  as  ascertained  above,  furnish  an  appropriate 
premise  for  the  exhortation  :  let  us  hold  fast  the  confession,  and  on 
the  other  hand  the  logical  reference  of  om  =  then,  must,  as  usual, 
be  to  something  immediately  foregoing,  unless  sense  forbids  it. 
The  executive  energy  of  the  word  of  God,  particularly  that  word  : 
"  To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,"  etc.,  and  the  imminent 
fate  impending  over  those  whose  characteristic  was  "  transgres- 
sion and  disobedience,"  ii.  2,  made  such  mediation  as  that  of  a 
high  priest  the  very  refuge  the  people  of  God  needed.  That 
situation  has  just  been  appealed  to  in  support  of  the  exhortation  : 
"Let  us  give  diligence  to  enter  into  that  rest,"  ver.  11.  It  is 
here  used  further,  by  the  logical  force  of  then,  to  press  the  need 
of  trusting  to  the  only  means  of  entering  into  that  rest,  viz.,  tlie 
mediation  of  a  high  priest,  i.  e.,  to  Jesus.^  The  confession,  is 
here,  as  at  iii.  1,  that  of  which  Jesus  is  the  contents,  and 
expressly  in  respect  to  what  is  mentioned,  viz.,  that  He  is  a  great 
High  Priest,  that  has  traversed  heaven,  and  is  the  Son  of  God. 
This  confession  is  to  be  held  fast,  which  means  holding  to  the  cer- 
tainty of  the  truth  concerned,  and  holding  to  it  with  a  view  to 
getting  the  blessing  involved  in  it.* 

The  Apostle  calls  Jesus  a  great  High  Priest ;  and  mentioning 
in  addition  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God,   and  exalted  to  heaven, 

1  As  by  Lun.  *  So  von  Hof.  »  Comp.  x.  19. 

*  See  ver.  16;  comp.  vi.  18. 


142  A   SYMPATHIZING   HIGH    PRIEST.  [iv.  15. 

justifies  his  calling  Him  great.  This  greatness  is  presented  as 
the  reason  for  that  trust  in  Him  expressed  by  holding  fast  the 
confession. 

But  greatness  is  not  the  only  quality  in  a  high  priest  that  sin- 
ners look  for.  The  greatness  peculiar  to  the  Son  of  God  might 
discourage  transgressors,  just  because  such  a  person  might  have 
no  experience  of  the  temptations  that  lead  to  transgression,  and 
consequently  no  sympathy  with  the  weakness  of  such.  It  is 
specially  the  Author's  aim  to  represent  Christ's  qualification  to 
be  High  Priest  in  this  particular,  and  not  on  the  ground  of  His 
greatness.  This  particular  about  our  High  Priest  he  hcts 
affirmed  before  (ii.  17)  and  would  now  establish.  Therefore,  he 
proceeds : 

Ver.  15.  For  we  have  not  an  High  Priest  unable  to  sympa- 
thize with  our  infirmities,  but  one  that  has  been  in  every  respect 
tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin. 

Having  affirmed  this,  and  added  an  appropriate  invitation, 
ver.  16,  the  Author  proceeds  to  amplify,  v.  1  sqq.,  the  truth  so 
affirmed. 

That  Christ  Avas  tempted  has  been  affirmed  already,  and  also 
that  He  was  made  like  His  brethren  in  every  respect,  and  that 
this  qualified  Him  to  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest  in 
things  'pertaining  to  God  (ii.  17,  18).  Here  it  is  affirmed  that 
His  likeness  to  His  brethren  extends  to  His  being  tempted  in 
every  respect  like  them,  and  that  with  reference  to  inspiring  them 
to  trust  in  Him,  as  one  qualified  to  sympathize  with  them.  The 
added  expression  :  without  sin,  limits  the  notion  of  likeness.  Sin 
formed  no  part  of  it.  Not  merely  that  He  sinned  not,  though 
tempted,  is  meant;  but  that  the  temptation  was  wholly  unat- 
tended by  sin  in  Him.  "  Not  only  did  the  temptation  produce 
no  sin  in  Him,  but  it  attached  to  no  sin  in  Him,^ 

Ver.  16.  let  us,  then,  approach  with  boldness  to  the  throne 
of  grace  that  we  may  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  for  timely  help. 

This  invitation  is  founded  on  the  representation  of  verse  15, 
to  which  the  olv  =  "  then  "  refers.  The  invitation  is  to  trans- 
gressors ;  the  readers  with  the  Apostle  having  been  represented 

^  von  Hof. 


iv.  15,]      APPROACH  THE  THRONE  OF  GRACE.         143 

in  this  light  (ii.  1-3  a).  The  approach  is  to  God,  whose  word 
they  have  transgressed.  His  presence,  or  where  He  is,  is 
expressed  by  the  throne  of  grace,  as  viii.  1,  iu  connection  with 
another  sentiment,  it  is  called  "  the  throne  of  majesty."  When 
He  that  occupies  it  receives  transgressors,  it  is  a  tliroue  of  grace. 
What  transgressors  may  obtain  there,  and  wliat  they  approacli 
to  obtain  is  mercy.  At  ii.  2,  3  a,  the  Apostle  has  signified 
that  what  transgressors  must  seek  is  escape  from  the  conse- 
quences of  trangression,  and  that  what  Christ  brings  is  salvation. 
The  present  invitation  is  to  approach  and  obtain  the  mercy  that 
will  be  escape,  and  find  the  grace  that  will  be  salvation.  Mercy 
and  grace  are  thus,  not  to  be  understood  as  expressing  the  same 
thing,^  but  distinct  notions.  Having  obtained  mercy  they  will 
find,  in  addition,  grace.  Or  (to  use  the  language  of  Jer.  xxxi.  31 
sqq.,  that  the  Author  quotes  further  on,  viii.  8  sqq.,  in  repre- 
senting the  same  truth),  when  their  transgressions  arc  blotted  out, 
they  will  find  themselves  the  gracious  subjects  of  a  new  cove- 
nant. The  Author  says  :  to  find  grace  for  timely  help.  In  this 
expression  the  reference  is  not  to  every  time  of  temptation,  and 
the  timeliness  of  the  help  is  not  that  at  all  such  times  we  shall 
be  helped  before  temptation  masters  us.^  At  iii.  13,  the  Author 
has  presented  the  thought  of  a  time  and  need  that  are  pressing, 
and  he  has  continued  to  urge  the  duty  of  heeding  them  as  the 
time  of  grace.  At  iv.  1  sqq.,  he  shows  that  his  readers  are  not 
too  late  for  it,  while  he  shows,  too,  that  unbelief  and  disobedi- 
ence may  make  them  too  late.  The  timely  help,  then,  is  help 
"  while  it  is  called  to-day,"  while  there  is  yet  time,  and  when  it 
is  not  too  late.^  In  accordance,  then,  with  all  that  he  has  been 
urging,  and  will  further  urge,  he  now  invites  his  readers  to  come 
and  find  the  grace  that  will  be  timely  help.  When  the  Author 
says  come  with  boldness,  he  does  not  mean  the  boldness  that  is 
sure  of  one's  self,  but  the  boldness  that  one  feels  when  sure  that 
he  comes  for  something  that  is  there  to  be  had  and  that  he  may 
obtain.  Thus  it  appears  that  by  approaching  the  throne  of  grace 
is  not  meant  the  habitual  approach  to  God  that  the  Christian 

'  Against  Liin.  *  As  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Kiehm,  etc. 

'  So  Bleek,  de  Wette,  I.un. 


144  EVERY   HIGH   PRIEST  [v.  1-4. 

must  make  in  prayer/  but  that,  approach  described  in  Jer.  xxxi., 
that  is  explained  in  chap,  viii.,  whereby  the  people  of  God  are 
received  into  new  covenant  relations  and  forsake  the  old  that 
passes  away.  The  full  expression  of  this  approach  is  found  at 
xii.  22—24.  It  is  the  meaning  intended  when  the  same  word 
{Tzpoaipx^fff^at)  is  used,  vii.  25 ;  x.  22.  At  xii.  22,  the  Author, 
using  the  same  word,  says :  ''  ye  have  come,"  which  expresses 
the  fact  involved  in  believing  on  Christ.  This  fact  or  truth 
might  not  be  apprehended  by  one  that  believed  on  Christ.  It 
was  not  by  those  whom  the  Apostle  addresses.  Such,  then, 
though  confessing  Christ,  may  be  exhorted  to  approach  the 
throne  of  grace  wdth  boldness  to  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace. 
Then  the  invitation  is,  to  apprehend  the  true  and  full  import  of 
Christ  and  His  revelation,  and  of  their  having  believed  on  Him, 
and  to  seize  the  blessing  He  brings. 

V.  1-4.  For  every  high  priest,  being  taken  from  among  men,  is 
appointed  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  that  he  may  offer 
both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins;  2.  being  able  to  bear  gently 
with  the  ignorant  and  erring,  since  he  himself  is  compassed  with 
infirmity ;  3.  and  on  account  of  it  he  must,  as  for  the  people,  so  also 
for  himself  offer  for  sins.  4.  And  no  one  take  s  this  honor  to  himself, 
but  when  he  is  called  by  God,  even  as  Aaron  was. 

Many  have  supposed  that  here  the  Author  takes  up  a  new 
thought  quite  distinct  from  the  foregoing  context.  This  occa- 
sioned the  present  division  into  a  distinct  chapter,  and  influ- 
enced the  rendering  of  the  English  version  of  1611,  w^hich  is 
corrected  in  the  version  of  1881.  According  to  this  supposition, 
the  Author  proposes  to  contraM  the  high-priestly  character  of 
Christ  with  that  of  human  high  priests.  Hence  the  rendering : 
"  Every  high  priest  taken  from  among  men."  This  leads  to 
taking  our  vers.  1—4  as  preliminary  statements  marking  the 
points  to  be  contrasted. 

But  the  For  of  ver.  1  establishes  a  logical  relation  between  the 
present  statements  and  the  preceding  context.  It  is  debated 
whether  the  For  connects  with  iv.  16,  or  iv.  15,  that  is,  whether 
what  is  now  said  is  meant  to  give  a  reason  for  the  exhortation  to 

^  Against  Lindsay. 


V.  1—1.]         IS  TAKEN  FROM  AMONG  MEN.  145 

approach  unto  God,  or  to  give  proof  that  we  have  in  Jcsiis  a 
sympathizing  High  Priest  ?  But  tlie  debate  seems  needless.  The 
reference  may  comprehend  both.  The  exhortation  to  approach 
is  founded  on  the  representation  that  Jesus  is  a  sympathizing 
High  Priest,  and  this  latter  fact,  with  its  conjoined  consccjuence, 
expressed  in  the  exhortation,  makes  but  one  subject,  in  illustra- 
tion of  which  the  Author  now  offers  additional  matter. 

His  purpose  is  to  justify  what  he  has  affirmed  of  our  High 
Priest,  and  the  encouragement  to  approach  the  throne  of  grace, 
and  this  he  does  by  pointing  to  what  is  true  of  "  every  high 
priest."  It  is  not  contrast,  but  comparison  and  likeness,  that 
the  Author  points  to.  The  every  (nd'i)  is  emphatic.  The  thing  in 
question  is  true  of  every  high  priest,  consequently  it  is  true  of 
Christ,  and  ipso  facto  it  is  affirmed  of  Him  when  He  Ls 
called  High  Priest.  As  to  the  specific  high  priest  concerned,  it 
is  obvious  that,  between  the  Author  and  his  readers,  no  other 
could  be  thought  of  than  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  the 
Aaronic  high-priesthood.  Were  the  matters  now  to  be  affirmed 
of  high  priests  applicable  to  every  high-priesthood,  i.  e.,  to  priest- 
hood whether  Jewish  or  not,  the  circumstances  of  the  present 
writing  would  demand  a  distinct  expression  of  this  notion. 

First  among  the  characteristics  of  every  high  priest  important 
to  the  present  comparison  is,  that  he  is  taken  from  among-  men. 
For  the  participial  clause  i^  mHf).  Xaix^m.  is  predicative,  and  not 
appositional  with  r.aq  apyy-p}  The  expression  of  this  in  parti- 
cipial form,  while  the  following  predicates  are  affirmed  directly, 
may  be  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  the  Author  has  already  repre- 
sented the  notion  of  Christ's  likeness  to  those  for  whom  He  min- 
isters as  High  Priest,^  and  that  thus,  like  every  high  priest.  He 
was  taken  from  among  men.  Thus,  he  does  not  purpose  to 
trace  this  likeness  in  the  present  text.  But  resuming  the 
expressed  notion  by  a  participial  clause,  he  proceeds  to  mention 
other  characteristics  that  show  how  a  high  priest,  as  such,  must 
sympathize  with  human  infirmity  while  discharging  his  ministry. 
He  is  appointed  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God.  Appointed 
for  men  is  the  emphatic  part  of  what  is  here  affirmed.     The  high 

*  See  Alford,  Del.,  Davidson.  *  Comp.  ii.  11-18;  iv.  15. 

10 


146  TO   OFFER  SACRIFICE   FOR  SINS,  [v.  1-4. 

priest,  though  taken  from  among  men  and  set  apart  to  deal  with 
matters  pertaining  to  God,  is  not,  by  that,  removed  from  men 
and  their  concerns.  His  appointment  is  for  men ;  his  business 
with  God  must  be  about  them.  If  he  forgets  them,  he  misses 
the  aim  and  business  of  his  office.  When  before  God  in  the 
functions  of  his  office,  he  is  there  for  men,  for  whose  sake  he  was 
appointed.  His  chief  business,  as  so  appointed,  is  that  he  may 
offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins.  By  TrpixTt/'iprj-oSeT,  is 
meant,  not  the  slaying  and  offering  on  the  altar,  but  the  presenta- 
tion after  this  is  done.^  What  determines  the  meaning  is  not 
only  the  use  of  the  word,  but  that,  throughout  the  epistle,  the 
correspondence  between  typical  and  anti-typical  high  priest 
relates  to  the  tabernacle,  and  hence  the  mention  of  gifts  with 
sacrifices.  The  re  xat  =  both,  and,  forbids  our  regarding  gifts  and 
sacrifices  as  one  notion  only  emphasized  by  a  double  expression. 
The  plurals  are  here  used  with  reference  to  the  repeated  annual 
occasions  when,  as  on  the  great  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  xvi),  the 
high  priest  offered,  according  to  our  Author,  a  gift  and  a  sacri- 
fice. That  the  great  day  of  atonement  is  referred  to  is  obvious 
from  ver.  3.  There  is  nothing  to  intimate  that  the  Author  refers 
to  anything  but  what  the  high  priest  did  himself  in  the  discharge 
of  his  own  peculiar  functions  on  the  great  day  of  atonement. 
But  Lev.  xvi.  3-15  mentions  only  a  bullock  and  a  ram  that  the 
high  priest  sacrifices  for  himself,  and  a  goat  as  the  only  sacrifice 
for  the  people,  while  it  mentions  nothing  that  it  calls  a  gift. 
Nor  is  there  mention  made  of  a  gift,  i.  e.,  an  unbloody  offering, 
in  any  part  of  the  ceremonies  of  the  day.  The  difficulty  thus 
presented  has  received  various  explanations ;  e.  g.,  that  dwpa  is 
the  general  term  for  all  sorts  of  unbloody  sacrifices,  and  i^/otria 
the  particular  bloody  sacrifice  ;  ^  or  that  both  words  are  meant  to 
refer  to  bloody  offerings,  a  meaning  that  Sd>pa  often  has  when  used 
alone.  Neither  of  these  explanations  is  admissible  in  the  present 
case,  because  the  two  words  are  expressly  distinguished.  As  it  is 
obvious  that  the  Author  refers  to  what  was  plain  as  a  matter  of 
record  in  Lev.  xvi.,  we  see  by  reference  to  the  record  that  nothing 
beside  the  sacrifice  of  the  bullock  and  the  goat,  with  sprinkling  the 
^  See  below  in  vii.  27.  "  So,  e.  g.,  Del. 


V.  1-4.]  AND    BEAR    GENTLY    AVITH   SINNERS.  147 

blood  and  the  offering  of  incense,  attended  the  higli  priest's  offer- 
ing for  himself  and  his  intercession  for  tlie  sins  of  the  peo^jle 
(Lev.  xvi.  11—15).  For  the  burning  of  incense  must  have 
attended  the  bringing  of  the  blood  of  the  goat  within  the  vail,  as 
well  as  the  previous  bringing  there  of  the  blood  of  the  bullock ; 
the  cloud  of  incense  would  need  to  cover  the  mercy  seat  in  the 
one  case  as  much  as  in  the  other.  The  annual  offering  of 
incense,  then,  the  Author  calls  gifts/  and  by  sacrifices  he  means 
the  annual  offerings  of  bullocks  and  goats.  The  high  priest's 
chief  business  was  to  offer  the  appointed  gifts  and  sacrifices  for 
sins.  Thus,  not  only  was  he  there  on  duty  for  men,  whom  he 
could  not  forget  while  he  did  not  forget  his  duty,  but  he  was 
there  in  reference  to  their  sins  and  nothing  else. 

To  this  the  author  adds :  being  able  to  bear  gently  with  the  igno- 
rant and  erring,  ver.  2.  Brought  in,  as  this  idea  is,  by  a  parti- 
cipial clause,  it  describes  the  frame  of  mind  with  which  the  high 
priest  must  make  his  offering,  and  combines  this  along  with 
the  sacrificial  service  as  comprehended  in  his  appointment 
{xai^iararat) ;  being  taken  from  among  men  he  is  appointed  that 
he  may  offer,  being  able  to  bear  with  sinners.  By  the  ignorant 
and  erring  is  not  intended  an  exceptive  designation,  as  though 
the  high  priest's  offering  and  his  bearing  gently  related  only 
to  sinners  that  were  to  be  described  in  these  mild  terms,  while 
sinners  with  a  high  hand  were  excluded.^  With  our  Author, 
erring  {T:Xwm<7f}aiY  is  not  an  expression  for  mild  sinning;  and 
when  he  combines  ignorance  {ayvotiv)  *  with  it,  we  cannot  sup- 
pose he  means  by  it  sin  in  a  mild  form.  Our  expresssion  covers 
all  sin  that  the  people  commit,  and  with  which  they  come  for 
atonement,  and  for  which  the  high  priest  offers  atonement.  It 
names  these,  or  rather  the  sinners,  in  the  most  general  terms,  as 
the  high  priest  must  think  of  them  comprehensively  while  aton- 
ing for  them.     So  must  the  one  sacrificing  bear  gently  with  those 

*  So  von  Ilof. :  in  support  of  which  he  appeals  to  Num.  xvi.  15,  17,  where, 
referring  to  the  incense  about  to  be  presented  by  Korah  and  his  company, 
Moses  says:  "Respect  not  thou  their  (nnjO)  offering." 

^Against  Blcck,  Del.,  Davidson,  Moulton.  '  Comp.  iii.  10. 

*  Comp.  Rom.  x.  3. 


148  BEING  HIMSELF  INFIRM.  [v.  1-4. 

sinning ;  not  as  indifferent  whether  they  have  sinned  or  not,  but 
as  not  incensed  at  them  because  they  have  sinned.  The  high 
priest's  compassion  for  sinners  is  owing  to  his  being  taken 
from  among  men,  which  means  he  is  a  sinner  like  themselves. 
This  idea  the  Author  goes  on  to  express  :  since  lie  also  is  com- 
passed with  infirmity.  The  weakness  is  such  as  renders  him 
unable  to  keep  from  sinning.  The  present  expression  is  for  the 
purpose  of  introducing  that  which  follows  :  and  on  account  of  it, 
viz.,  the  weakness,  he  must,  as  for  the  people,  so  also  for  himself, 
offer  for  sins.  The  must  refers,  not  to  an  inward  impulse,  or  a 
necessity  in  the  nature  of  things/  but  to  the  requirement  of  the 
divine  institution  by  which  the  high  priest  was  appointed.^ 
The  appointed,  ver.  1,  and  the  statement  of  ver.  4,  show  that  the 
Author  attaches  importance  to  the  notion  that  the  high  priest  is 
by  divine  appointment  all  this  that  is  affirmed  of  him.  It 
could  be  little  matter  that  he  was  so  qualified,  if  these  things 
were  not  what  God  required  in  a  high  priest.  The  matter  just 
expressed  preceded  the  offering  for  the  people.  The  high  priest 
first  offered  for  himself  and  his  house  before  offering  for  the  peo- 
ple. This  not  only  fitted  him  ceremonially  to  be  a  mediator  for 
the  people  as  holy  and  proper  to  appear  for  them  before  a  holy 
God,  but  it  fitted  him  with  respect  to  the  people  themselves. 
Fresh  from  the  confession  of  his  own  sin,  and  holy  only  by 
virtue  of  ceremonial  absolution,  he  would  sympathize  with  the 
sins  of  those  whose  high  priest  he  was. 

The  Author  adds  another  characteristic  of  "  every  high  priest." 
And  no  one  takes  the  honour  unto  himself,  but  [he  takes  it]  being 
called  by  God,  even  as  Aaron,  (ver.  4).  It  is  not  a  new  subject 
that  is  here  introduced,  but  only  a  second  trait  of  high  priestly 
qualification.  And  what  is  thus  affirmed  is  also  connected  with 
the  "for,"  ver.  1,  and  by  that  related  to  iv.  15, 16.  It  presents 
an  essential  ground  of  confidence  in  coming  to  God  by  the  media- 
tion of  a  high  priest.  Not  only  the  office  and  kind  of  man  are 
divinely  appointed,  but  the  person  himself  is  called  of  God. 
Only  one  can  be  high  priest.  Only  God  can  name  him.  There 
will,  then,  be  certainty  about  him,  and  consequently  confidence 

•  Against  Del.,  Alford.  "  So  von  Hof. 


V.  1— i.]       CALLED  TO  THE  HONOR  BY  GOD.  149 

in  approaching  God  by  him.  The  example  of  this  is  Aaron.' 
The  manner  of  Aaron's  calling  and  institution  as  high  priest 
settled,  at  the  original  institution  of  the  office,  that  only  those  could 
fill  it  whom  God  designated.  By  confining  it,  then,  to  Aaron's 
posterity,^  those  that  in  that  order  took  the  office,  did  it  as  clearly 
by  the  call  of  God  as  Aaron.  By  appealing  to  Aaron  as  the  ex- 
ample of  the  calling  and  appointing  of  a  high  priest,  the  Author 
appeals  to  the  office  as  originally  instituted,  and  therefore  in  its 
pure  and  simple  form.  This  shows,  that  when  he  speaks  of  "every 
High  Priest "  (ver.  1),  he  means  only  those  that  were  properly  such 
according  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  institution.  Such  a  ref- 
erence precludes  of  itself  any  consideration  of  suggestions  arising 
from  later  history  of  the  high-priesthood,  and  especially  as  it 
was  in  the  Author's  day,  when  high  priests  were  appointed  by 
temporal  powers  in  a  fashion  that  had  little  to  do  with  a  call  of 
God.  The  Author,  at  a  later  point,  in  a  similar  manner,  appeals 
to  the  Tabernacle,  and  its  services  as  originally  instituted,  and  not 
at  all  to  the  Temple,  either  as  it  then  was  or  ever  had  been.  We 
may  assume  that  this  is  intentional,  and  the  nearest  reason  for  it 
is  that  his  appeal  is  actually  to  the  scripture,  the  authoritative 
records,  and  so  he  refers  to  the  facts  as  represented  there.^ 

In  the  next  following  verses  (5—8),  the  Author  returns  from 
the  general  to  the  particular,  i.  e.,  from  what  is  true  of  every 
High  Priest  to  pointing  the  correspondence  in  Christ  himself. 
This  he  does  in  an  inverted  order.  *  First,  in  vers.  5,  6  he  points 
out  the  resemblance  to  what  is  mentioned  in  ver.  4.  Second,  in 
vers.  7,  8  he  points  out  the  correspondence  in  Christ  in  respect  to 

'  Comp.  Ex.  xxviii. ;  Lev.  viii.  ^  Exod.  xxLx.  29,  30. 

'  It  may  be  taken  as  one  of  many  proofs  of  the  omrtiscient  superintendence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  composition  of  the  scriptures,  that  tliese  appeals  to  the 
original  Pentatcuchal  representations  of  things,  now  affords  a  most  efiective 
bulwark  against  the  modern  attacks  of  criticism  on  the  genuineness  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. It  has  not  heretofore  seemed  plain  wliy  the  Author  should  refer  to 
the  Tabernacle  and  not  to  the  Temple,  and  many  even  suppose  he  means  the 
Temple.  Now,  however,  much  is  plain  why  the  composition  of  our  epistle  at 
this  point  is  as  it  is. 

*  So  Hammond,  Del. ;  on  the  contrary  Liin.,  and  Davidson,  who  treat  it  with 
contempt. 


150  CHRIST    MADE    HIGH    PRIEST  [v.  5,  6. 

the  statements  of  vers.  1-3.  This  is  not  done,  however,  in  a 
precise  and  formal  way,  but  rather  the  second  resemblance  is 
expressed  indirectly  in  a  relative  sentence,  vers.  7-10,  which 
connects  with  the  statement  of  vers.  5,  6,  and  represents  how  the 
Saviour  became  that  which,  not  he  himself,  but,  God  glorified 
him  to  become.^ 

Yer.  5,  6.  So  Christ  also  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made 
High  Priest,  but  he  that  spake  unto  him :  Thou  art  my  Son,  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee ;  6  as  also  in  another  place  he  says :  Thou 
art  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

Precisely  {^af^wamp — oSrw?)  as  Aaron,  in  that  respect  stated 
ver.  5,  Christ  became  High  Priest.  At  iv.  14,  the  Author  names 
him  Jesus ;  here,  in  resuming  the  mention  of  him,  he  calls  him 
the  Christ  {6  Xpiar6<;^  We  may  suppose  this  is  done  intention- 
ally, as  befitting  this  mention  in  connection  with  Aaron.  ^  When 
Aaron  was  made  High  Priest  he  was  anointed  with  oil,  and 
thence  received  the  designation  "  the  anointed  priest,"  (in  LXX. 
6  Ispshi?  ^ptffrd^).^ 

Instead  of  saying  simply  :  Christ  took  not  this  honor  unto 
himself,  it  is  said  :  glorified  not  himself.  Thus  what  is  called  an 
honor  {rt/jLTj)  in  one  case,  is  in  this  other  called  glory  (do^rj).  To 
the  Author,  every  thing  relating  to  Christ,  what  he  is  and  what 
believers  enjoy  through  him,  is  glorious,^  especially  in  comparison 
with  others.  ^  Instead  of  saying  simply  :  Christ  was  called  of  God 
to  take  the  glory  of  becoming  High  Priest,  the  Author  expresses 
the  thought  in  an  unique  way  much  richer  in  meaning.  The 
parallel  in  ver.  5  constrains  us  to  understand  that  the  chief  thing 
affirmed  is,  that  Christ  was  called  of  God  to  be  High  Priest. 
Hence  we  must  take  the  expressions  :  he  that  spake  unto  him, 
etc.,  as  a  circumlocution  for  God  (J  '9£«?).  ^  It  is  the  Author's 
style  to  use  such  circumlocutions,  ^  and  we  have  another  for  God 
in  ver.  7.     But  such  circumlocutions  are  pregnant  expressions,  a 

»  So  von  Hof.  ^  Comp.  Moulton.  ^  j^^y  jy  3^  5^  jg. 

*  Comp.  i.  3  ;  ii.  7,  9,  10 ;  xiii.  21. 

^  Comp.  iii.  3,  and  also  2  Cor.  iii.  8-11. 

®  Comp.  Ebrard,  who  cites  Theophylact,  Erasmus,  Carpzov,  Bengel,  Bleek. 

'  Comp.  ii.  11,  14  ;  x.  23,  30;  xii.  3. 


V.  5,  6.]  BY  GOD   HIS   FATHER.  151 

species  of  breviloquence,  introducing  notions  important  to  the 
context.  Thus  the  Author  says  :  Christ  was  glorified  to  be  High 
Priest  by  him  that  spake  unto  him :  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee,  using  language  of  Ps.  ii.  7.  The  time  and 
manner  of  this  speaking  referred  to  must  be  that  of  the  scripture 
passage  itself,  as  is  evident  from  the  manner  of  introducing  the 
next  quotation  from  Ps.  ex.  In  another  place,  signifies  that  both 
expressions  are  what  is  spoken  of  Christ  in  the  scripture.  It  is 
common  to  suppose  that  the  Author  cites  Ps.  ii.  7  as  proof  that 
God  called  Clirist  to  be  High  Priest.  But  this  is  attended  with 
insuperable  perplexities  that  are  only  obviated  by  suspicious 
ingenuity,  ^  such  as  we  have  observed  in  reference  to  the  scripture 
language  used  ii.  5-13.  The  language  of  Ps.  ii.  7  prophetically 
called  Christ  God's  Son.  That  of  Ps.  ex.  4,  also  prophetically 
called  him  Priest,  that  is,  not  High  Priest,  but  Melchizedek 
Priest,  a  significant  title  that  needs  interpretation,  and  which  the 
Apostle  will  proceed  to  interpret  later  on. 

AVhat  the  Author  means  to  signify  by  pairing  these  two  peri- 
phrases for  God  is,  that  God  who  called  Christ  so,  stood  in  the 
relation  of  Father  to  Him.  The  quoted  language  is  in  neither 
case  adduced  as  proof  of  the  fact.  His  readers  needed  no  such 
proof  of  these  facts  from  the  Author.  Both  facts,  viz.,  that 
Christ  is  the  Son  and  that  he  is  High  Priest,  have  been  stated 
(not  affirmed)  before  as  the  actual  and  common  confession  of  the 
Author  and  his  readers.  But  in  that  dramatic  way  the  Author 
has  used  before,  ^  he  affirms  in  appropriate  scripture  language, 
that  records  the  two  things  mentioned,  that  it  was  the  Father, 
who  called  Christ  his  Son,  and  also  called  him  Melchizedek 
Priest,  that  glorified  him  to  be  High  Priest.  His  method  is 
obviously  more  impressive  than  the  simple  didactic  statement 
would  be.  Moreover,  the  notions  thus  introduced,  do  not  end 
here,  but  are  introduced  with  the  ulterior  purpose  that  appears 
in  vers.  7-10,  where  vers.  7,  8,  have  relation  to  the  expression, 
Who  spake  unto  him,  Thou  art  my  Son,  and  ver.  9,  10,  are  related 
to  the  expression :  Thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek. 

'  Comp.  Lindsay.  '  Comp.  at  i.  5-13;  ii.  12,  13. 


152  HIS    PKAYEES,  SUPPLICATIONS   AND    TEARS.      [v.  7.  8. 

The  Apostle  now  adds  a  comprehensive  representation  concern- 
ing Christ,  expressed  in  an  extended  relative  sentence,  closely 
connected  with  the  foregoing  by  09  =  who.  This  sentence  con- 
sists of  two  parts  connected  by  and.  At  the  head  of  the  first, 
stands :  In  the  days  of  his  flesh ;  at  the  head  of  the  second : 
having  been  perfected.  These  two  expressions  designate  two 
conditions  of  Christ,  and  of  them  the  Apostle  remarks  particulars 
concerning  his  High  Priesthood.     The  first  is  as  follows : 

Ver.  7.  Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  having  off'ered  both 
prayers  and  supplications  with  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  him 
that  was  able  to  save  him  from  death,  and  having  been  heard  from 
the  [his]  dread,  8.  although  he  was  a  son,  he  learned  obedience  by 
the  things  which  he  suffered. 

The  who  of  ver  7,  "  refers  not  simply  to  '  Christ '  ver.  5,  but 
the  relative  sentence  must  be  construed  in  its  connection  with 
*  did  not  glorify  Himself  to  become  High  Priest,'  in  which  con- 
nection it  can  only  mean  to  amplify  how  the  Saviour  became 
that  which,  not  Himself,  but  God  glorified  him  to  become."  * 
In  the  days  of  his  flesh,  designates  the  period  when  Christ  lived 
in  the  nature  common  to  mankind.  In  that  period  occurred 
both  what  is  principally  affirmed,  viz.,  he  learned  obedience  by 
the  things  he  suffered,  and  also  what  is  stated  in  participial  form 
as  occurring  precedent  to  that.  "  The  preceding  aorist  participles 
express  something  that  must  be  conceived  as  temporally  ante- 
cedent to  what  the  direct  verb  expresses.  Moreover,  the  parti- 
cipial clause  consists  of  two  parts,  the  first  stating  that  Christ 
prayed,  and  the  second  that  His  prayer  was  heard.  The  Apostle 
designates  the  praying  as  a  TrpofTfipzr^=  offering,  viz.,  of  prayers 
and  supplication.  When  it  is  considered  that  he  has  just  been 
speaking,  in  vers.  1-3,  of  the  two-fold  offering  (-potrf^psfJ)  of 
the  high  priest,  it  is  natural  enough  to  explain  the  present 
choice  of  expression  for  Christ's  praying  by  that ;  and  no  expen- 
diture of  exclamation  points  ^  can  avail  against  the  fact,  that  this 
designation  for  prayer  has  its  parallel  in  this  New  Testament 
writing,  xiii.   15,  in:  'let  us  offer  up  (dva^ipetv)  a  sacrifice  of 

^  von  Hof.  '  This  against  von  iJofmann's  critics,  e.  g.,  Liin. 


V.  7,  8.J  A    LIKENESS   WITH   SIN   LEFT   OUT.  153 

praise  to  God.'  ^  Thus  it  must,  after  all,  remain,  that  the 
Apostle  has  purposely  conformed  this :  oifering  up  both  prayers 
and  supplications,  to  that :  offering  up  both  gifts  and  sacrifices, 
(ver.  1) ;  and  so  the  notions  there  and  here,  conjoined  in  each 
case  by  re  xai-  both,  and,  stand  in  both  instances  in  similar  rela- 
tions, and  the  one  pair  corresponds  to  the  other,  ^y  dw/wv  = 
a  gift,  one  honors  God,  and  by  {^uata  =  a  sacrifice,  one  signifies 
that  He  needs  forgiveness  for  sins  that  condemn  him.  As,  then, 
to  a  gift  one  joins  a  sacrifice,  so  to  prayer,  by  which  one  requests 
something  of  God,  are  added  supplications,  because  the  suppliant 
is  in  need  and  danger  that  can  only  be  averted  by  God's  saving 
help.  Both,  not  merely  gifts,  but  also  sacrifice,  and  not  merely 
prayer,  but  also  imploring  supplication,  are  a  deed  of  piety,  the 
former  of  the  sinner,  the  latter  of  the  oppressed  ;  and  each  is  the 
consequence  of  infirmity,  the  former  of  a  weakness  that  occasions 
falling  into  sin,  the  latter  of  a  weakness  that  exposes  one  to  evil. 
Thus  correspond  to  one  another  the  oifering  of  the  legal  high 
priest,  prescribed  for  him  because  he  is  subject  to  sinful  infirmity, 
and  Christ's  supplicating  prayer  oiFered  up  to  God  because  of 
infirmity  of  the  flesh  that  makes  evil  a  temptation  for  Him.  The 
one  is  related  to  the  other  as  the  legal  high  priest  to  Christ,  the 
sinful  representative  of  his  people  that  are  to  be  purified,  to  the 
sinless  Redeemer  of  the  sinful  world.  The  supplication  of  the 
latter  is,  of  course,  no  atonement ;  but  dread  of  evil  is  infirmity, 
which  only  becomes  Avell  pleasing  to  God  by  turning  to  God 
in  prayer."  ^ 

Thus  the  Apostle  has  illustrated  what  he  affirmed,  iv.  15,  vi?.. 
that  our  High  Priest  was  tempted  in  every  respect  as  we  are 
"  yet  without  sin,"  by  representing  His  likeness  to  every  high  priest, 
and  painting  the  portrait  with  sin  left  out.  The  object  of  this 
affirmation  and  illustration  is  to  show,  that  in  Christ  mc  have  a 
merciful  High  Priest  that  can  sympathize  with  our  infirmities, 
(iv.  15).  "  As  the  legal  High  Priest  was  only  then  in  condition  to 
bring  the  offering  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  when  he  had 
first  made  the  prescribed  offering  for  himself,  so  Christ  was  only 
then  in  condition  to  endure  the  suffering  in  obedience,  after  the 

'  against  Liin.  '  von  I  lof. 


154  GETHSEMANE.  [v.  7,  8. 

prayer,  by  which  he  brought  his  anguish  to  God,  was  so  heard 
that  he  was  freed  from  the  infirmity  that  made  him  pray,  but 
which  also  made  him  gentle  toward  us  men  who  are  beset  with 
sinful  infirmity.  And  this  suffering  in  obedience  had  just  as 
much  for  Him  its  ground  outside  of  his  filial  relation  to  God,  as 
the  sins  of  the  people  that  the  legal  high  priest  needed  to  expiate 
were  for  him  the  sins  of  others."  ^  Regarding  the  point  set 
forth  above,  how  Jesus  was  made  gentle  toward  the  infirmities 
of  those  whose  sins  he  was  to  expiate,  we  may  refer  to  the  striking 
difference  in  His  manner  toward  the  disciples  when  he  was  in  an 
agony  of  supplication,  as  recorded  by  all  the  Synoptists  :  "  Why 
sleep  ye  ?  rise  and  pray  that  ye  enter  not  into  temptation,"  (Luke 
xxii.  46,)  and  His  manner  afterward  as  recorded  Matt.  xxvi. 
45 ;  Mark  xiv.  41,  when  He  said  gently;  "Sleep  on  now  and 
take  your  rest." 

The  event  to  which  the  Apostle  refers  is  the  transaction  in 
Gethsemane.  It  is  this  alone,  neither  including  previous  expe- 
riences "  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,"  nor  the  suffering  on  the  cross 
that  followed.  ^  The  latter  appears  from  all  that  we  represent 
below  about  the  meaning  of  "being  perfected  "  (re-^sjto^st?),  ver.  9. 
The  former  is  excluded  by  the  simple  fact,  that  we  have  no 
account  of  any  experience  like  that  described  happening  to  Christ 
before  Gethsemane.  It  was  a  solitary  experience,  and  the 
Author's  exposition  of  it  treats  it  as  such  an  experience  that 
could  only  happen  in  connection  with  His  sacrifice  that  atoned  for 
the  people,  as  the  legal  high  priest's  appointed  sacrifice  for  him- 
self could  only  be  when  he  was  to  offer  for  the  people.  The 
Author's  description  of  the  event  includes  one  item,  viz.,  weeping, 
not  elsewhere  given.  Epiphanius,  ^  indeed,  reports,  that  in  some 
correct  copies  of  Luke's  gospel.  His  weeping  was  mentioned.  But 
we  need  not  require  such  authority  for  the  Author.  He  could 
have  the  information  in  ways  of  his  own ;  and  the  fact  is  natural, 
and  even  necessary,  in  view  of  the  agony  as  it  is  actually  described 
by  the  Synoptists.  Nevertheless,  we  may  be  grateful  for  the 
express  mention,  by  competent  authority,  of  this  additional  trait 
of  the  agony  in  the  garden. 

*  von  Hof.  »  Against  Del.  '  Ancor,  31. 


V.  1,   8.]        LET  THIS  CUP  PASS  FKOM  ME.  155 

What  Jesus  prayed  for  was,  that  He  might  be  delivered  from 
death.  Such  is  the  plaiu  inference  from  the  circunilocntion  for 
God  to  whom  He  prayed,  viz.,  him  that  was  able  to  save  him 
from  death.  Such  a  designation  for  God  is  but  a  terse  way  of 
bringing  in  additional  notions  important  to  the  context.^  It 
expresses  first,  that  Christ's  pra}'cr  was,  to  be  saved  from  death ; 
and  second,  in  connection  with  the  event,  that  it  was  the  will  of 
God  that  He  should  taste  death.^  For  though  God  could  save 
Him,  He  would  not.^  And,  in  connection  with  the  context 
(vers.  5,  6,  8),  the  prominent  thought  is,  that  this  is  the  Father 
that  did  not  spare  the  Son.  That  Christ's  prayer  was  to  be 
saved  from  death  is  confirmed  by  the  common  understanding  of 
wdiat  is  meant  by  His  prayer  :  "  let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  ^ 

It  is  debated  here  whether :  save  from  death  meant,  not  to 
suffer  death,  or  not  to  be  left  in  the  state  of  the  dead ;  in  other 
words,  whether  Christ  prayed  not  to  die,  or,  to  be  raised  from 
the  dead.  The  direct  and  simple  meaning  of  the  expression : 
save  from  death,^  expresses  only  the  former  notion,  and  every- 
thing in  the  Author's  representation  accords  with  tliat.^  He 
would  show  how  Christ  was  tempted  in  every  respect  like  men. 
He  has  affirmed  (ii.  15,  17)  such  to  be  the  fact  in  connection  with 
the  crowning  temptation  of  human  life,  viz.,  the  fear  of  death. 
Now  he  represents  Christ  sympathizing  with  that  infirmity  by 
portraying  how  He  shared  with  His  brethren  the  same  dread 
of  death,  as  the  consequence  of  sharing  with  them  blood  and 
flesh  (ii.  14). 

A  further  inquiry  is  suggested  here  :  what  was  that  dread  of 
death  that  Christ  felt  f  To  see  in  that  dread  only  human  shrink- 
ing from  the  physical  suffering  that  attends  death,  and  especially 
a  cruel  form  of  dying,  or  even  to  conceive  of  that  as  an  import- 
ant part  of  the  Saviour's  dread,  as  the  Apostle  portrays  it,  and  to 
compare  it  with  the  weariness  and  thirst  that  the  Saviour  felt 

1  Comp.  on  vers.  5,  6.  *  Comp.  at  ii.  9,  10. 

^  Comp.  Mark  xiv.  39  with  Luke  xxii.  42. 

*  Matt.  xxxi.  39 ;  Mark  xiv.  30  ;  Luke  xxii.  42. 

^Comp.  Alford,  Baumgarten. 

^  In  favor  of  the  other  view,  comp.  Liin. 


156  WHY   SHRANK    HE    BACK    FROM    DEATH.  [v.  7,  8. 

like  other  men/  is  manifestly  much  below  the  plain  of  the 
Apostle's  discourse.  These  notions  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
representations  at  ii.  9.  14-18,  where  the  same  subject  is  dealt 
with  as  it  affected  the  experience  of  common  men.  We  must 
resume  here  what  the  Apostle  represented  there,  and  what  we 
there  learned  of  his  meaning.  There  he  spoke  of  men  as 
tempted,  and  of  Christ  becoming  in  every  respect  like  them ; 
and,  because  it  pertained  to  what  he  was  there  explaining,  he 
specified  the  crowning  temptation  of  humanity,  viz.,  the  fear  of 
death.  Here,  having  said  (iv.  15)  that  Christ  was  tempted  in 
every  respect  as  we  are,  he  portrays  Him  undergoing  that  temp- 
tation that  was  the  life-long  fear  of  those  He  came  to  save.  His 
meaning  is,  that  the  Son  was  allowed  to  be  overwhelmed  by  that 
dread  just  as  other  men.  The  same  things  that  they  dreaded 
were  His  dread,  and  His  emotions  then  were  like  those  of  the 
pious  sons  of  God  before  Him,  e.  g.,  David  and  Hezekiah.^ 
Having  at  ii.  14,  15,  specified  the  fear  of  death  as  the  special 
example  of  human  temptation,  the  Author  would  need  to  express 
himself  precisely  to  that  effect,  if  he  would  not  have  his  readers 
understand  that  he  meant  the  same  here.  The  seed  of  Abraham, 
on  whom  Christ  laid  hold  to  save  them,  had  shuddered  at  death 
in  the  prospect  of  Hades,  to  which  they  were  tending.  Christ 
did  the  same,  for  the  same  prospect  was  before  Him.  "  Through 
death  "  and  Hades  He  was  to  deliver  those  on  whom  He  laid 
hold  as  a  Saviour.  "  Why  shrank  He  back  from  death,  except 
because  He  discovered  therein  the  curse  of  God,  and  a  conflict  to 
be  endured  with  all  the  powers  of  sin,  and  hell  itself."  ^  We 
cannot  define  further  what  that  dread  was.  Since  Christ  endured 
it  and  was  perfected  (ver.  9),  it  ceased  to  be  the  dread  of  the 
people  of  God.  Death  no  longer  presents  to  them  that  dread 
prospect.  Those  that  experienced  it  before  Him  were  perfected 
with  Him,*  and  for  all  after  Him  that  obey  Him,  He  became  the 
cause  of  everlasting  salvation.^  The  way  of  the  saints  now  is 
through  Him,  by  the  new  and  living  way,  to  that  which  is 

^  As  Lindsay,  *  See  above  on  ii.  9,  14,  15. 

^  von  Gerlach,  quoted  in  Del.  *  x.  14.  *  Ver.  9. 


V.  7,  8.]  HE    WAS    HEARD    FROM    HIS    FEAR.  157 

witliiu  the  vail/  to  joiu  the  company  of  the  spirits  of  tlie  just 
tliathave  been  perfected.  They  have  even  come  to  them  ah'eady 
in  the  new  covenant.^ 

The  second  part  of  our  (first)  participial  clause  states  that 
Christ  was  heard  from  his  dread.  This  expresses  not  only  that 
He  was  heard  and  answered,  but  also  liow  He  was  answered.  In 
this  interpretation  we  adhere  to  the  rendering  of  7/79  eoXafitia^ 
given  in  the  version  of  1611,  against  the  version  of  1881,  which 
reads:  "having  been  heard  for  his  godly  fear"  =  Plis  piety.  In 
support  of  this  latter  rendering  the  reader  may  consult  Delitzsch, 
Liinemann,  Alford,  Farrar.^  The  logical  connection,  especially 
as  involved  in  the  comparison  between  the  doing  of  the  legal 
high  priest  and  what  Christ  did,  leads  up  to  the  rendering  we 
prefer,  and  that  has  been  the  most  generally  accepted.*  Tliis 
rendering,  commends  itself  in  that  the  addition,  from  his  fear, 
describes  a  way  of  answering  the  prayer  of  Christ  that  presents 
no  conflict  with  the  facts  of  the  case.^  With  the  other  render- 
ing, the  simple  statement  that  He  was  heard  implies  that  what 
He  asked  was  granted ;  and  yet  He  was  not  spared.  With  our 
rendering,  the  Author  explains  that  the  answer  was  a  deliverance 
from  the  awful  dread  that  overwhelmed  Him,  and  with  this  the 

^x.  19.  *xii.  22-24. 

^  The  rendering  we  reject  takes  and  in  the  sense  of  "  for,"  "  on  account  of." 
The  New  Testament  citations  in  favor  of  this  use  are  Matt,  xxviii.  4 ;  Luke 
xix.  3 ;  xxiv.  41 ;  John  xxi.  6 ;  Acts  xii.  14.  But  they  do  not  support  it. 
Those  that  seem  most  to  do  so,  liave  that  appearance  only  because  the  imagery 
of  the  idiom  is  overlooked.  Zacchaeus  could  not  ses  Jesus  aivb  r.  bx^ov,  "  from 
the  crowd."  But  some  of  the  Pharisees  drro  r.  bxhiv^  "from  the  crowd,"  said 
to  Him,  etc.,  Luke  xix.  3,39.  When  the  notion:  "for  the  crowd,"  "on 
account  of  tlie  crowd,"  is  expressed,  it  is  by  6ia  t.  bx^v,  Luke  v.  19.  Comp. 
the  and  Tyg  rfofw  Acts  xxi.  11,  with  <^ia  t.  M^av,  2  Cor.  iii.  7.  The  latter 
expresses  the  notion :  "on  account  of  the  glory."  Acts  xx.  9,  as  an  example,  is 
rather  evidence  of  the  poor  support  the  alleged  usage  finds. 

*  "Thi.s  rendering  is  not  in  the  least  more  difficult  than  when,  Ps.  cxviii.  5 
3mQ3  'JJi'  is  rendered  by  kir^Kovai  fie  e'l^  nXarva/iov,  which  recalls  Ps.  xxii.  21, 
(22)  'JO'^^  C?!?  'J'^.P.?  ;  or  Panri^ea^ai  airbvEKpov  (Sir.  xxxi.  30) ;  or  pavrH^Eadai 
aTTo  cirpeM/ffcog  novrjpag  (Ileb.  x.  22) ;  or  (pdeipEO-d^ai  aKo  T/ji;  anXbriiTog."  Von 
Ilof. ;  comp.  Whitby. 

"Comp.  Baumgarten. 


158  A   SON   LEARNING   BY  SUFFERING  [v.  7,  8. 

facts  agree,  ^  He  was  strengthened  by  an  angel,  and  then  went 
cabnly  to  die.  Having  before  experienced  a  dread  of  approach- 
ing calamity,  like  that  of  Noah  [enXafir^'^sc?  xi.  7),  in  view  of  the 
flood.  He  afterward  went  to  encounter  death  with  serenity,  like 
that  of  Enoch  when  he  walked  with  God. 

Ver.  8.  Though  being-  a  Son,  he  learned  [his]  obedience  by  the 
things  he  suffered. 

In  vers.  5,  6,  the  Author  has  expressed  that  it  was  He  that 
called  Christ  "  My  Son,"  and  also  called  Him  Melch.  Priest,  that 
made  Him  High  Priest.  Pursuing  this  thought,  he  states  here 
that,  Son  as  He  was,  Christ  by  the  way  of  suffering  learned  His 
obedience.  Not  sfuv'hv,  but  eVa-^rv ;  not  that  he  learned  ^  but  that 
he  suffered  ^  is  the  emphatic  notion  here.  There  is  no  logical 
force  in  saying :  "  although  being  a  son  He  learned  ol)edience." 
For  whether  learning  or  obedience  be  emphatic,  both  are  what 
is  to  be  expected  of  a  son.  It  is,  however,  quite  logical  in  itself, 
and  consistent  with  the  context,  and  with  ii.  10,  to  represent  that 
Christ,  though  a  Son,  to  whom  obedience  was  natural,  was  called 
to  learn  and  show  what  His  obedience  was  in  this  way  of  suffer- 
ing, so  unlike  what  a  son  might  look  for,  and  so  unlike  what 
others  might  look  for  in  a  relation  like  His.  The  article  joined 
to  obedience  (rr^v  u-axarj'S)  designates  it  as  the  obedience  that  was 
His,  and  calls  for  no  previous  mention  of  the  obedience.*  The 
suffering  referred  to  was  not  that  described  in  ver.  7,  but  that  for 
which  the  experience  of  ver.  7  prepared  Christ.  By  reference 
to  ii.  10,  18,  it  is  evident  that  the  suffering  was  that  by  which 
He  was  perfected  as  the  Captain  of  salvation,  i.  e.,  His  dying. 
This  makes  it  plain  that  the  Author  does  not  mean  in  ver.  7 
that  Christ's  prayer  was  granted  in  the  form  that  He  requested. 
Following  the  statement  "  He  was  heard,"  our  ver.  8  affirms 
indirectly,  that  Christ  was  not  spared  death,  by  affirming  what 
was  His  experience  in  suffering  death. 

By  obedience  here,  cannot  be  intended  that  perfection  of  moral 
character  that  consists  in  conformity  to  the  moral  law.®  It  were 
absurd  to  suppose  that  the  Author  could  mean  that  Christ  only 

*  Luke  xxii.  43.  ^  Against  Liin.,  Del.  '  With  von  Hof. 

*So  von  Hof. ;  comp.  Kiihner,  Gramm  II.  p.  515.  ^Against  Angiis. 


V.  9,  10.]  AND    BEING    PERFECTED.  159 

learued  that  when  He  came  to  die ;  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  all 
that  is  represented  of  Him,  by  our  Author  as  well  as  others,  to 
suppose  that  this  was  a  matter  of  learning  with  Him.  That 
obedience  was  natural  and  necessary  to  Him.  But  to  sutfer 
death  was  neither  necessary  nor  natural  to  one  that  was  sinless,  and 
who  was,  moreover,  God's  own  Son.  It  was  necessary  only  as 
being  the  will  of  God  "  in  bringing  sons  to  glory,"  ^  and  in 
making  that  Son  the  High  Priest  by  whom  He  would  bring 
them.  Obedience  to  that  purpose  of  God  was  different  from  all 
other  obedience.  It  was  Christ's  obedience,  and  the  obedience 
of  no  other.  What  one  learns  is  his,  and  is  not  his  without 
learning.  So  obedience  is  learned.  And  by  suffering  death, 
that  obedience  involved  in  His  dying  became  Christ's.  Our  ver. 
8  is  a  pregnant  statement.  Its  most  obvious  import,  viz.,  that 
Christ  suffered  death,  because  obvious  and  understood,  is  not 
expressed,  while  other  notions  important  to  the  subject  are 
expressed,  because  they  need  to  be  expressed  in  order  to  be 
noticed.  "  In  connection  with  the  statement  that  Christ  was 
glorified  to  be  High  Priest,  not  by  Himself  but  by  God  His 
Father,  we  are  reminded  of  the  fact  that  He  so  learned  obedience 
that  to  Him,  who  as  Son  might  have  expected  something  else, 
befell  that  which  He  suffered.  Thereby  it  is  noted,  that  it  was 
not  easy  for  Him  to  submit  to  this  suffering ;  He  dreaded  it,  and 
prayed  to  Him  that  was  able  to  save  Him  from  death.  Xeitlier 
was  Plis  pi'ayer  unheard.  Only,  the  hearing  consisted  in  reliev- 
ing Him  of  the  dread,  and  not  in  dispensing  Him  from  the 
suffering."  ^ 

Ver.  9.  And  being  perfected,  he  became  unto  all  them  that 
obey  him  [the]  cause  of  eternal  salvation,  10.  being  greeted  by 
God,  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

The  Apostle  has  showed  how  God  glorified  Christ  to  be  High 
Priest  in  that  way  that  made  Him  the  antitype  of  the  legal  high 
priest  (vers.  1-4  and  7,  8).  Now,  in  the  second  half  of  this 
long  relative  sentence  that  begins  (ver.  7)  with  "  who,"  He  repre- 
sents how  He  is  greater  than  tlic  legal  high  priest,  by  affirming  that 
He  is  cause  of  an  eternal  salvation,  and  that,  corresponding  to 

Mi.  10.  ''von  Ilof. 


160  HE    BECAME    CAUSE   OF   SALVATION.  [v.  9,  10. 

this  difference,  His  high-priesthood  is  after  the  order  of  MelcM- 
zedek.  The  condition  of  Christ  wherein  this  became  true  is 
subsequent  to  that  expressed  by  "  the  days  of  His  flesh  "  (ver. 
7),  and  is  expressed  by  being  perfected  (r£;.£:w.'>£}9) ;  for  there  is 
manifestly  such  an  antithesis  in  these  expressions  themselves, 
and  also  in  the  way  in  which  they  appear  in  this  extended  rela- 
tive sentence.^  When  He  was  perfected  Christ  became  what  is 
now  described ;  by  which  is  meant,  that  without  that  which  is 
called  perfected  He  would  not  be  such.  Here  the  meaning  for 
perfected,  established  at  ii.  10,  becomes  apparent.  It  expresses 
that  fitness  to  be  the  cause  of  salvation,  which  was  the  goal  of 
His  earthly  existence  and  the  supreme  achievement  of  His 
mediatorial  work;  just  as  perfected,  when  predicated  of  "them 
that  are  sanctified "  (x.  14),  describes  the  fitness  of  those  that 
are  saved  to  share  the  glory  of  Christ's  exaltation,  and  to 
enter  the  vail  whither  He  has  entered  a  forerunner  for  them 
(vi.  19,  20). 

He  became  cause  of  eternal  salvation.  This  effect  of  His 
high-priestly  agency  describes  something  very  different  from 
what  the  legal  high  priest  effected,  and  infinitely  superior ;  and 
the  Author  develops  its  meaning  further  on.^  But  for  the  pres- 
ent we  must  identify  the  salvation  with  what  we  have  learned 
the  meaning  of  that  word  to  be  at  i.  14  ;  ii.  3,  10.  The  subjects 
of  this  saving  efficacy  are  described  as  them  that  obey  him 
(Christ).  The  Author  has  just  described  (ver.  8)  how  Christ 
was  obedient  as  a  Son  to  the  Father ;  and  what  he  now  describes 
is  represented  as  following  on  that  obedience,  and  the  TTfjoffayopeui^ei? 
=  saluted,  sets  it  in  the  light  of  reward.  The  present  mention 
of  the  subjects  of  salvation  as  them  that  obey  Christ  expresses, 
therefore,  a  parallel,  according  to  which  our  obedience  to  Christ 
corresponds  to  His  obedience  to  the  Father,  and  our  salvation 
can  only  follow  that,  as  His  high-priestly  power  to  be  the  cause 
of  everlasting  salvation  could  only  follow  His  obedience  by  which 
He  was  perfected.  This  identity  of  relation  between  His  obedi- 
ence and  that  which  followed  His  being  perfected,  and  our 
obedience  and  the  salvation  we  receive  in  consequence,  is  con- 

'  See  above  before  ver.  7.  ^  See  x.  1-18. 


V.  9,  10.]  GREETED    BY    GOD    HIGH    PRIEST.  IGl 

firmed  by  the  Author's  exchanging  further  on  ^  the  expression 
eternal  salvation  for  "  perfected  forever."  By  the  present 
expression  for  those  that  are  saved,  and  by  calHug  Christ  (aJ'Tto?) 
cause  of  salvation,  the  Author  expressly  signifies,  that  the  salva- 
tion is  not  attainable  apart  from  Christ,  but  that  he  is  its  Author 
and  possessor.^ 

Being  greeted  by  God  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek 
continues  that  reference  that  the  Author  introduced  at  ver.  6,  as 
was  noticed  above.  The  time  of  this  greeting  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  that  of  Ps.  ex. ;  for  being  perfected  expresses  the 
time  for  what  is  here  described  ;  moreover,  the  notion  of  High 
Priest  is  foreign  to  the  Psalm.^  "  Nor  does  this  clause  explain 
the  principal  sentence  [i.  c,  how  Christ  became  cause  of  salvation]  ; 
for  that  needs  no  explanation.*  Neither  is  this  clause  the  mere 
announcement  of  a  new  theme.^  But  it  expresses  wherewith 
that  eventuated  which  forms  the  contents  of  the  principal 
sentence.  When  God  received  Christ  to  Himself,  He  greeted 
Him  as  High  Priest,  on  the  ground  of  what  He  had  high- 
priestly  done  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  and  more,  as  High  Priest 
according  to  the  measure  of  the  position  of  ]\Ielchizedek,  the 
royal  Priest.  For  He  bade  Him  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  His 
throne,  in  order  to  give  them  that  believed  in  Him  the  benefit 
of  high-priestly  atonement  in  the  quality  of  a  Priest  that  shared 
the  superterrestrial  majesty  of  God.  Thus,  the  fulfillment  of 
the  Psalm  word,  that  represents  the  King  of  God's  people  as  a 
Priest  who  is  antitype  of  Melchizedek,  is  combined  with  the 
doing  of  Christ  while  living  in  the  flesh  that  was  antitypieal  of 
what  the  legal  high  priest  did  ;  and  both  together,  that  God 
made  His  suifering  death  the  emergence  of  His  earthly  life,  and 
that  He  raised  Him  on  high  to  Himself,  were  the  way  by  which 
He  glorified  Him  to  be  High  Priest,  and  then,  moreover,  to  be 
Hisrh  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek."" 

Let  us  now  pause  to  remember,  that  our  passage  v.  1-10  forms 
a  connected  representation  that  is  a  unit ;  and  that  it  is  at  ver.  1 
connected  by  "for"  with  iv.  15,  16.  It  is  the  proof  and  illustra- 

'  X.  14.  ^  Comp.  Del.  ^So  von  Hof.  *  Apainst  Liin. 

*  Against  Ebrard.  *von  liof. 

11 


162  RESUME  OF  V.  1-10.  [v.  9,  10. 

tion  of  the  truth  affirmed  iv.  15,  that  we  have  in  Jesus  a  High 
Priest  that  can  sympathize  with  our  infirmities,  and  it  reiterates 
the  thought  that  He  is  "  a  great  High  Priest  that  has  traversed 
heaven/'  (iv.  14)  by  representing  Him  received  by  God  with 
the  salutation,  high,  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  (ver.  10). 
As  the  statement  of  iv.  15  was  in  order  to  justify  the  cheering 
exhortation  :  "  Let  us  approach  with  boldness  the  thi'oue  of 
grace  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  for  timely  help  " 
(iv.  16),  so,  too,  this  extended  proof  and  illustration  is  presented 
for  the  same  end.  At  x.  19  sqq.  the  Apostle  reiterates  essen- 
tially the  same  exhortation,  after  giving  amplified  proof  and 
illustration  of  some  of  the  truths  involved  in  our  passage  v.  1-10 ; 
and  the  exhortation  there  is  given  in  plainer  terms  as  it  compre- 
hensively gathers  up  and  enforces  the  chief  results  of  the  extended 
discussion  that  precedes  it  (vii.  1 — x.  18).  The  exhortation 
there  and  at  iv.  16  is  specifically  applied  to  the  "seed  of  Abra- 
ham "  (ii.  15),  who  were  put  under  the  administration  and 
operation  of  "  the  word  spoken  by  angels  "  (ii.  2),  that  made 
them  transgressors  (ii.  2)  and  could  not  do  more  (x.  2,  3).  For 
this  Christ  brings  "great  salvation,"  which  is  the  only  means  of 
"  escape  "  (ii.  3).  This  was  provided  by  "  the  grace  of  God," 
who  would  thereby,  as  the  only  way  that  "  became  him," 
"  bring  many  sons  unto  glory  "  (ii,  9,  10).  In  our  passage  (v. 
1-10)  the  Apostle  has  displayed  this  Saviour  as  "a  merciful  and 
faithful  High  Priest "  (ii.  1 7),  in  whom  the  people  of  God  may 
confide,  and  through  whom  they  may  approach  with  confidence 
to  obtain  the  lielp  their  case  requires.  And  what  Israelite,  that 
knew  and  believed  what  our  passage  represents,  might  not  come 
with  joyful  assurance  to  God's  throne,  that  is  now,  for  him  who 
obeys  Christ,  a  throne  of  grace  ?^  And  what  Gentiles  (for  the 
application  to  their  case  is  obvious),  what  Gentiles,  who,  as  Paul 
says,  when  speaking  of  such,  "  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  in 
that  they  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts  " 
(Rom.  ii.  14,  15),  may  not  come  with  the  same  joyful  assurance, 
pressed  as  they  are  by  the  law  of  conscience  to  feel  the  need  of 
the  same  salvation  ? 

'  Comp.  von  Hof. 


V.  11.]  A    GREAT   SUBJECT.  163 

The  Apostle  has,  in  vcr.  10,  expressed  what,  in  the  sequel,  we 
find  to  be  the  theme  that  he  actually  develops  at  considerable 
leugth  vii.  1 — x.  18,  viz.,  the  high-priest iiood  of  Christ  and  its 
unique  character  as  typified  by  Melchizedek.  It  is  thus  evident 
that  it  is  his  present  purpose  to  pursue  this  subject  as  he  after- 
ward does.  But  before  he  thus  launches  out,  he  makes  a 
digression  (vii. — vi.  20),  in  which  he  administers  rebuke  and 
warning  and  exhortation  Math  truly  apostolic  authority.  First, 
we  have  the  rebuke  v.  11-14;  in  which  the  Apostle  reproaches 
his  readers  with  culj)able  backwardness  in  learning,  on  account 
of  Avhicli  he  intends  to  impart  to  them  very  full  instruction,  yet 
finds  it  difficult  to  explain  to  them  what  he  has  to  impart  on  the 
subject  expressed  in  ver.  10. 

Ver.  1 1 .  Concerning  which  we  have  many  things  to  say,  and 
hard  of  interpretation,  seeing  ye  are  become  dull  of  hearing. 

AVe  translate  [-t/A  <iu)  of  which,  and  not  "  of  whom  "  because  the 
reference  cannot  be  to  any  person  named  in  ver.  10  taken  simply 
as  a  person,  but  to  the  whole  notion  of  Christ  as  there  presented. 
The  determining  evidence  of  this  must,  as  said  above,  be  found 
in  the  sequel.  Only  the  Author  himself  can  determine  for  us 
the  reference  of  the  ambiguous  pronoun  ou  ;  and  only  in  vii.  1 — 
X.  18,  do  W'C  find  what  can  serve  to  enlighten  us  in  this  respect. 
A  survey  of  the  matter  presented  in  that  sequel  shows  that  Ave 
must  not  translate  :  "  concerning  whom ; "  understanding  tlio 
reference  to  be  to  Christ.^  "  For  such  an  expression  as  this 
would  hardly  here  be  used,  seeing  that  the  whole  epistle  hitherto 
[as  well  as  in  all  the  sequel]  has  been  concerning  Him."^  Nei- 
ther can  we  understand  the  reference  to  be  to  Melchizedek.^  For, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Author  expresses  himself  very  briefly 
about  Melchizedek.  But  Christ,  a  High  Priest  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,  i.  c,  Christ,  a  Priest  of  a  unique  order,  as  typified 
by  Melchizedek,  and  Christ,  a  Priest  in  heaven,  and  as  such  a 
High  Priest  whose  ministry  is  for  the  whole  people,  and  "  a  High 
Priest  forever,"  as  the  Author  furtlier  defines  of  his  subject  vi. 
20,  this  subject  we  find  to  be  actually  the  theme  of  the  Author's 
subsequent  discourse,  which,  for  amplitude,  fully  answers  to  liis 
1  As  Lun.  ^  So  Alford.  »  As  de  Wette,  Alfonl. 


164  DULL  HEAREES.  [v.  12. 

affirming  that  he  has  much  to  say,  and,  for  substance,  justifies  his 
declaring  it  difficult  of  interpretation.  To  this  whole  subject,  as 
expressed  in  ver.  10,  does  the  ou  of  our  verse  refer,'  and  so  we 
must  translate  :  Of  which. 

In  affirming  that  what  he  has  to  say  is  difficult  of  interpretation, 
the  Author  means  that  it  is  hard  for  him  ^  to  find  a  way  of  rep- 
resenting it  to  his  readers  that  must  be  at  once  an  adequate 
representation  of  the  truth  and  a  clear  explanation  of  it.  He 
blames  this  difficulty  on  his  readers,  saying  this  is  so :  since  ye 
are  become  dull  of  hearing.  Saying :  ye  are  become  (yay^i'aTa) 
implies  that  it  was  once  otherwise  with  them,  and  that  the  pre- 
sent dullness  has  come  about  by  their  own  fault.^  It  is  not  with 
having  forgotten  what  they  had  learned  that  the  Apostle 
reproaches  them,  but  with  having  lost  the  aptitude  to  learn. 
So  they  have  become  sluggish  where  it  was  important  to  make 
further  acquisitions  than  those  they  so  readily  made  at  first.  In 
illustration  of  the  fault  with  which  he  charges  them,  as  it  affects 
the  present  n^ed,  an^  not  as  a  mere :  for  instance,  the  Apostle 
proceeds : 

Ver.  12.  For  when,  on  account  of  the  time,  ye  ought  to  be  teach- 
ers, ye  have  need  again  that  some  one  teach  you  the  elements  of 
the  beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and  are  become  such  as  have 
need  of  milk,  not  of  solid  food. 

The  scrutiny  of  our  Author's  discourse  from  i.  1-3,  to  the 
present  point,  reveals  a  consecutive  and  consistent  order  of  thought 
that  holds  strictly  to  the  subject  in  hand.  And  as  we  proceed, 
we  shall  continue  to  observe  the  same  thing.  It  is  just,  then,  to 
assume  that  such  is  the  case  in  the  present  language,  and  that 
the  Author  is  not  indulging  in  expressions  of  a  general  and  com- 
prehensive nature,  but  expresses  himself  only  ^vith  respect  to  the 
subject  in  hand.  Interpreting  him  thus,  we  will  not  assume 
that  he  expresses  himself  here  in  generalities,  and  thus  we  will 
find  no  room  for  perplexities  that  puzzle  many  readers  *  in  respect 
to  the  antitheses  of  the  context,  and  its  alternations  of  metaphor- 
ical and  literal  expressions. 

» So  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Davidson.  ^  So  Liin.,  Alford,  Del.,  von  Ilof. 

3  So  Chrys.  *  See  in  Alford  and  Liin.,  Lindsay. 


V.  12.]  A    PATIENT   TEACHER.  165 

Lot  US  then  observe/  that  our  ver.  12,  comprising  two  parts, 
marked  and  conjoined  by  and,  corresponds  to  the  entire  ver.  11, 
with  its  two  parts  similarly  marked  and  conjoined.     Ver.    1 1 
affirms  that  the  Author  has  much  to  say ;  and  correspondingly 
ver.  12  refers  to  the  rudiments  of  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  of 
of  God,  that  furnish  the  foundations  of  that  concerning  which  he 
has  so  much  to  say ;  while  the  need  of  saying  so  much,  i.  e.,  with 
such  amplification,  is  because  those,  who,  on  account  of  the  time 
ought  to  be  teachers,  need  themselves  to  be  taught.     Again,  ver. 
1 1  affirms,  as  a  second  matter,  that  the  Author  finds  it  hard  to 
set   forth   these   things   with   their    interpretation   because   the 
readers  are  become  dull  of  hearing ;    and  correspondingly,  the 
second  clause  of  ver.  12  affirms,  as  additional  to  what  is  affirmed 
in  the  first  clause,  that  the  readers  are  become  such  as  need  milk 
and  not  solid  food.     In  all  this  the  Author  refers,  not  to  things 
in  general  that  are  to  be  taught  and  learned  concerning  Christian 
knowledge.      Reference  to  vi.  1,  2,  as  intimation  of  what  is  in 
the  Author's  mind,  does  not,  when  rightly  understood,  suggest 
this.     His  reference  is  strictly  to  the  matters  pertaining  to  his 
subject.     When  he  says  :  some  one  must  teach  you  the  elements 
of  the  beginning   of  the  oracles  of  God,  he    intimates  that   he 
therefore  proposes  himself  to  do  the  needful  thing  by  them.     He 
has  already  begun  to  do  this   in  v.  1-3.     And   in  the   sequel, 
especially  vii.  1 — x.  18,  we  may  see  how  he  continues  to  do  it, 
and  may  see  in  his  performance  what  he  means  by  the  elements 
of  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  pf  God.      Thus  we  observe, 
that  one  after  another  he  rehearses  the  leading  facts  relating  to 
Melchizedek  (vii.  1-3),  the  Levites  (vii.  11  sqq.),  the  high  priest 
(viii.  3  sqq.),  the  Tabernacle  (ix.   1-7),  sanctification  by  blood- 
sprinkling  (ix.  15-22) ;  and  following  each  of  these  is  the  inter- 
pretation that  illustrates  his  great  theme  :  Christ  on  high,  a  High 
Priest  unique,  and  forever,  i.  e.,  after  the  order  of  INIclchizedek. 
Reasoning,  then,  from  the  facts  thus  furnished  by  the  Author, 
we  may  infer  his  meaning  when  he  speaks  of  the  beginning  of 
the  oracles  of  God.^ 
The  elements  of  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God :   so   we 

'  With  von  Ilof.  *  Comp.  Angus. 


166  THE   ELEMENTS   OF   THE   BEGINNING  [v.  12. 

translate  ra  aror/ela  riy?  a-p'/7,a  riov  Xoyiwv  r.  S.  ;  and  not  "  the  first 
principles,"  making  r.  ap^/j^  qualify  r.  (ttu(^.  adjectively,  as  is 
commonly  done.  And  the  reason  for  doing  so  is,  that  inference 
from  the  observations  noted  above  leads  us  to  suppose  that 
the  Author  here  expressly  names  the  beg-inning  of  the  oracles 
of  God,  meaning  the  divinely  revealed  things  recorded  in  the 
beginning  of  the  written  word.  We  have  seen  at  ii.  3  how  the 
Author,  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  of  salvation,  distinguishes 
between  the  beginning  of  it,  which  was  done  by  the  Lord  Him- 
self, and  that  which  followed  in  the  preaching  of  those  that  heard 
Him.  We  notice  the  recurrence  of  the  same  notion  vi.  1,  "  the 
word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ."  And  at  ii.  3,  we  traced  the 
evidences  of  a  similar  usage  common  to  the  contemporaries  of  our 
Author.  It  would,  in  itself,  be  natural  enough  to  distinguish  in 
the  same  way  regarding  the  word  of  God  spoken  in  the  Old 
Testament,  taking  what  is  delivered  by  Moses  as  the  beginning, 
and  what  comes  after  as  the  continuation.  That  by  r.  ?.<iycio>  the 
Old  Testament  is  meant  in  distinction  from  the  New  Testament ' 
is  the  presumption  from  the  other  instances  of  New  Testament 
use  of  the  word  ;^  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  facts  of  the  Apos- 
tle's subsequent  discourse  as  noted  above,  wherein  he  deals  only 
with  matter  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  that  he  means 
by  the  expression  :  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  to  point  particu- 
larly to  the  beginning  of  Old  Testament  revelation  is  borne  out 
by  the  fact  that  in  the  subsequent  discourse  vii.  1 — x.  18,  he 
confines  himself  to  matter  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch.  For  the 
quotation  of  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34,  quoted  in  viii.  8  sqq.,  makes  no 
exception  ;  seeing  it  is  adduced  as  a  divine  word  for  that  truth 
which  the  Apostle  has  been  establishing  by  considerations  drawn 
from  the  elements  of  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God.  More- 
over, TO.  <rr«j;jf££a^the  elements,  as  the  expression  occurs  in  Gal. 
iv.  1-9  (bis.),  so  far  as  it  is  there  applied  specifically  to  the 
Judaizing  tendencies  there  opposed,  denotes  the  same  things 
about  which  our  Author  discourses  vi.  1 — x.  18,  in  order  to  show 
from  those  things  themselves  that,  instead  of  their  being  ordi- 

^  So  Owen  in  Pool,  McKnight,  von  Hof.,  etc. 
^  Acts  vii.  38  ;  Eom.  iii.  2 ,  2  Pet.  iv.  11. 


V.  12.]  OF   THE   ORACLES   OF    GOD.  167 

nances  for  the  present,  they  are  done  away  by  the  high  priest- 
hood of  Christ  and  all  involved  in  that.  And  in  Gal.  iv.  1-9, 
as  here  in  our  vers.  11-13,  to.  azor^eia  are  represented  as  being 
for  little  children  {yri-ui^). 

In  Gal.  iv.  1-9  Paul  addresses  Gentiles  that  were  being 
ensnared  into  Judaism.  Our  Author  addresses  Jewish  Christians 
who  were  falling  back  into  Judaism.  If,  in  the  former  case, 
TO.  (TToc/sia,  suited  only  for  children,  (^^rJTTiot),  means  "  the  elements 
of  non-Christian  mankind,  i.  e.,  the  elementary  things,  the 
immature  beginnings  of  religion  that  are  the  business  of  those 
that  are  outside  of  Christianity,"  or,  in  other  words,  "  the  rudi- 
menta  ritualia,  the  ceremonial  matter  of  Judaism  and  heathen- 
ism," ^  then  the  same  expressions  used  in  our  verses  of  those 
purely  Jewish  may  most  likely  mean  the  riuUmenta  ritualia,  the 
ceremonial  matter  of  Judaism  exclusively.  And  such  we  under- 
stand to  be  our  Author's  meaning,  when  he  speaks  of  the  ele- 
ments, which  he  defines  more  precisely  as  pertaining  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  oracles  of  God. 

He  pointedly  affirms  that  his  readers  themselves  ought  to  be 
teachers,  and  as  a  reason  he  adds  Sta  rdv  ypu'^wj  -  on  account  of 
the  time.  In  what  sense  the  Author  means  the  former  depends 
upon  the  sense  expressed  by  the  latter.  It  is  common  to  under- 
stand (iifi  T.  -/fxi-Miv  to  mean  :  "  for  the  long  time,"  viz.,  that  the 
readers  have  been  believers.  ^  And  this,  beside  being  a  well  sup- 
ported idiomatic  meaning,^  seems  to  be  suggested  by  the 
ysy6\'aTs  =  je  are  become,  (vers.  11,  12),  which  implies  a  previous 
condition  when  they  were  otherwise,  i.  <?.,  not  dull  of  hearing  and 
not  needing  milk.  Following  this,  then,  the  Author  seems  to 
intimate  by  dca  r.  y.  the  long  time  they  have  been  conversant 
with  the  things  in  questions,  or  been  taught  them,  and  to  give 
that  as  a  reason  why  they  ought  by  this  time  to  be  themselves 
teachers  of  them.  But  if,  as  has  been  observed  above,  the 
Author  is  not  expressing  himself  in  generalities,  but  with  strict 
reference  to  the  subject  on  which  he  means  to  discourse,  then 

'  See  Meyer  on  Gal.  iv.  3. 

*  So  Chrys.,  AeiKwaiv  ivrav-da  npu  ttoXKov  xfx^vov  TrgTriGTevKorar  avrov^. 

'  See  Liin.,  Alford. 


168  TEACHERS    FOR    THE   TIME.  [v.  12. 

several  things  appear  that  are  quite  incompatible  with  this  com- 
mon acceptation  of  the  words  we  are  considering.     First,  the 
Author  must  mean  that  his  readers  ought  to  be  teachers,  not  of 
Christian  truth  in  general,  but  of  such  truth  as  he  is  about  to 
impart  himself.  Second,  it  is  not  apparent  how  this  "  oughtness " 
(d</)e{AovTS's)  in  their  case  could  arise  from  the  length  of  time  that 
they  had  believed,  unless  it  appears  plain  that  during  the  period 
of  their  being  Christians  they  were  taught  such  things.   Nothing 
of  the  sort,  however,  is  plain,  but  all  the  evidences  are  to  the 
contrary.     We  need  only  appeal  to  the  New  Testament  scrip- 
tures themselves,  and  ask :  where  would  we  ourselves  be  with 
respect  to  the  chief  matters  taught  in  tliis  epistle,  were  we  with- 
out this  epistle  itself,  we  who  have  been  so  much  longer  Chris- 
tians ?     Reflection  on   these  facts  forbids  our  understanding  the 
Author  to  be  blaming  his  readers  for  ignorance  of  these  things, 
or  that  he  intimates  that  they  ought  to  be  teachers  of  them. 
And  recurring  to  the  context,  we  observe  that  his  expressions  do 
not  actually  affirm  or  even  imply  as  much.     He  blames  them 
for  dullness  of  hearing,  not  for  ignorance  of  what  he  has  now  to 
impart.     He  implies  (jeyo'^ars)  that  once  they  were  otherwise,  i.e., 
that  they  were  apt  to  learn,  not  that  they  once  knew  what  they 
have  now  forgotten.     For   this  reason  (the  one  actually  given 
and   not  those  we   deny)  he   intends   to   instruct  them   by  an 
accumulation  of  illustration,  yet  will  find  it  hard  to  do  it  in  a 
convincing  manner.     There  is  nothing  in  this  that  necessarily 
involves  the  notion  that  his  readers  ought  to  know  already  the 
things  they  are  now  to  be  taught.     And  if  reflection  on  known 
facts,  as  noticed  above,  makes  it  extremely  improbable  that  they 
could  have  known  such  things  as  the  Author  proceeds  to  teach 
them,  we  are  precluded  from  supposing  that  the  Author  means 
to  intimate  that  they  ought  both  to  know  and  teach  them,  if  his 
words  can  have  another  and  very  plain  meaning.     As  for  liis 
meaning  in  general  that  they  ought  to  be  teachers,  we  repeat,  that 
such  generalities  are  inconsLstent  with  the  Author's  manner  of 
holding  strictly  to  what  belongs  to  his  subject,  and  we  may  add, 
that  his  way  of  mentioning  heads  of  doctrine,  vi.  1,  2,  as  some- 
thing that  may  be  passed  by,  taken  with  what  we  have  already 


V.  12.]  d<.a.  Tov  -/povov.  169 

observed    as  to  the  religious  status  of  his  readers, '  intimates 
capacity  enough  to  be  teachers  in  a  general  way. 

We  take  the  meaning  of  dia  r.  xpo-xiv  to  be  what  has  been  sug- 
gested by  Owen,  but  not  insisted  on  by  him.  "  It  may  intend 
the  nature  of  the  season  they  were  under.  There  is  no  inconveni- 
ence in  this  sense,  and  it  hath  much  good  instruction  in  it ;  but 
I  will  rather  adhere  to  that  which  is  more  commonly  received."^ 
On  account  of  the  time,  the  Apostle  says^  and  he  means  the  time 
referred  to  by  "To-day"  (iii.  15;  iv.  7),  esjiecially  as  made  por- 
tentious  by  the  fact  that  it  is  "  after  so  long  a  time"  ^  (//sr«  tixtoo- 
rov  ^^pu'Mi-^y  It  was  thus  a  period  {xpo-^iK?)  in  contradistinction 
from  a  "  season  "  or  "  point "  of  time  {/.atpd^i).  It  was  a  time  to 
exhort  one  another  every  day,  "  lest  their  hearts  should  be  hard- 
ened through  the  deceitfulness  of  sin"  (iii.  13).  It  was  a  time 
near  its  end.  His  readers,  he  says,  referring  later  to  the  same 
time,  "  see  the  day  approaching "  (x.  25),  and  that  day  would 
end  the  time  of  gracious  opportunity.  For  all  that  would  fail 
to  use  it  to  escape,  "  the  day  "  must  be  one  in  which  they  could 
only  look  for  fiery  judgment  to  devour  them.  Such  a  time  had 
in  itself  all  the  motives  and  suggestions  for  teaching.  In  the  other 
references  to  it,  just  cited,  these  motives  and  suggestions  are 
pressed  by  the  Author  on  his  readers,  and  he  urges  them  to 
attend  diligently  their  meetings  (x.  25),  and  to  keep  up  daily 
exhortations  (iii.  15;  x.  25),  the  chief  substance  of  which  nmst 
be  to  point  to  the  signs  of  "  the  day  approaching,"  the  nature  of 
the  crisis,  and  to  warn  against  the  deceitfulness  of  sin,  especially 
as  it  appeared  in  the  aims  and  efforts  of  those  whom  the  Apostle 
designates  as  "the  adversaries"  (x.  27).  And  all  such  exhorta- 
tion was  teaching,  and  those  who  imparted  it  were  teachers,  who 
felt  that  they  ought  to  be  teachers  on  account  of  the  time.  And 
that  is  what  our  Author  means  mIicu  lie  says  of  his  readers, 
ye  ought  to  be  teachers  on  account  of  the  time.  Nothing  but  the 
fact  that  it  has  been  so  commonly  misconceived,  justifies  so  many 
words  in  establishing  a  meaning  so  simi>le  as  a  matter  of  trans- 
lation, and  so  consistent  with  the  Author's  whole  discourse. 

^  See  e.  g.,  p.  9  sqq. 

^  Owen  in  loc.     Comp.  Alford,  for  others  that  entertain  this.  '  T>e\. 


170  MILK    FOR    BABES.  [v.  12. 

The  Apostle  says,  that  instead  of  being  teachers  (by  which  he 
means  they  ought  to  be  teaching,  for  the  time  presses  so),  the 
readers  need  to  be  taught.  That  expresses  the  whole  extent  of 
antithesis  intended.  It  does  not  comprehend  also  the  matter  to 
be  taught.  That  might  be,  and  actually  was  different.  They 
ought  to  be  teachers  as  the  time  furnished  the  motive  aijd  the 
theme.  And  after  imparting  to  them  the  instruction  he  has  in 
mind,  the  Author  presses  then  to  diligence  in  such  teaching 
(x.  24,  25).  But  they  are  not  doing  so ;  and  it  is  because  they 
are  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  crisis,  and  of  most  fundamen- 
tal things  concerning  Christianity.  Therefore,  they  have  need 
that  some  one  teach  them  in  that  respect.  They  are  held  in 
bondage  by  the  ceremonial  law,  and  they  must  be  set  free  as  chil- 
dren become  free  by  attaining  their  majority.  This  necessitates 
their  teacher  "  to  teach  them  the  elements  of  the  beginning  of 
the  words  of  God."  When  the  Author  says :  ye  have  need 
again  "  that  some  one  teach  you,"  the  again  does  not  imply  that 
they  are  to  be  taught  over  again  what  they  once  leai-ned,  but 
only  that  they  are  again  to  become  learners,  while  they  are  taught 
the  things  mentioned.  As  said  already,  the  antithesis  extends 
only  to  this :  instead  of  being  teachers  themselves,  they  again 
need  to  be  taught. 

The  Apostle  adds  :  and  are  become  such  as  have  need  of  milk/ 
not  of  solid  food.  It  is  usual  to  understand  the  Apostle  to  say  here 
metaphorically  what  he  has  said  literally  in  the  foregoing  clause  of 
our  verse.  But  having  noted  as  above  the  correspondence  between 
the  vers.  11  and  12,  and  their  several  clauses  conjoined  by  "and," 
we  find  in  our  present  clause  an  additional  notion  corresponding 
to  the  statement  of  ver.  11:  "ye  are  become  dull  of  hearing," 
yet  not  its  metaphorical  equivalent.  The  metaphor  expresses 
figuratively  a  truth  concerning  those  that  are  dull  of  hearing, 
which,  like  the  dullness  of  hearing,  makes  it  hard  for  the  Author 
to  explain  what  he  proposes  to  teach  when  he  teaches  the  ele- 
ments of  the  oracles  of  God.  What  he  affirms  of  the  readers 
does  not  imply  that  he  must  give  them  milk,  and  not  solid  food, 

i/ca/="and"  omitted  by  Tisch.,  Treg.,  W.  &  H. 


V.  13.1  Xop)'i  8ixaioffiJVT^<;.  171 

and  that  he  Intends,  therefore,  to  give  them  intellectual  food  of 
that  sort.  It  were  as  reasonable  to  suppose  that,  because  they 
were  dull  of  hearing,  he  must  be  content  with  their  hearing 
little,  and  that  he  meant  to  be  so.  Whereas,  on  the  contrary,  he 
means  that  they  shall  hear  much,  and  that  they  must,  therefore, 
sharpen  their  hearing.  And  so  in  affirming  what  he  does  in  the 
present  clause,  the  Apostle,  while  blaming  his  readers  with  having 
got  to  need  milk,  means  that  it  makes  the  difficulty  in  giving  them 
solid  food,  yet  implies  that  it  is  solid  food  that  they  mud  have. 
To  this  second  clause  exclusively  he  adds  the  explanatory  words 
of 

Ver  1 3 :  For  everyone  that  partakes  of  milk  is  unskilled  in 
right  speech,  for  he  is  a  babe. 

And  in  this  the  Apostle  pursues  the  thought  of  verse  11, 
M'hen  he  says  that  what  he  has  to  impart  is  difficult 
of  interpretation.  He  traces  it  to  the  character  of  those 
who  are  dull  of  heariuo-.  Their  being;  such  as  needed  milk, 
made  right-speech  unsuited  to  them  as  it  is  to  babes.  To 
babes  on  their  mothers'  breast  one  uses  baby  talk,  and  not  the 
language  that  is  fitted  for  grown  persons,  nor  language  that  ade- 
quately represents  things  as  they  are.  And  infants  talk  to  one 
another  in  language  that  is  not  right-speech.  And  here  we 
accept  for  A<y"?  dixaioauurji}  the  rendering  proposed  by  Delitzsch 
(in  loc).  "  As  1  Cor.  xii.  8  (on  Avhich  see  Olshausen),  koyo^^  auxfia'i 
signifies  the  gift  of  speaking  wisely,  and  Xoyu^  y^uxTsu}^  the  gift 
of  speaking  wdth  understanding,  so  X.  8t/..  signifies  ability  to 
speak  in  accordance  with  righteousness."  "  The  genitival  com- 
bination resembles  the  Hebrew  pii'  'j::^,  Ti-vi  'PDr,  pii*  'jrxo  ('•  <'•, 
"stones,  sacrifices,  scales  of  righteousness").^  But  with  von 
Hofmunn  {in  he),  we  would  modify  this  interpretation,  adding: 
"  Only  this  may  not  be  transposed  into  meaning  orthodox  sj)ecch, 
but  the  Apostle  appeals  to  the  fact  that  he  who  is  nourished  on 
his  mother's  breast  with  milk  does  not  understand  correct  lan- 
guage, because  he  is  still  under  age ;  in  the  most  exact  sense  is 

*  See,  further,  Del.  Comp.  Grotius.  Gen.  for  adjective ;  so  that  is  called  jiw/a 
hominus  statura  which  attains  to  a  full  height ;  so  mammon  jf  righteousness 
(jiistitiae)  i.e.,  true  riches .(Lui^e  xvi.  11,  12). 


172  SOLID    FOOD    FOR   ADULTS.  [v.  14. 

v^jTrto?."  By  this  interpretation  we  escape  imputing  to  the  Author 
a  mingling  of  figurative  and  literal  expressions,  and  this  is  no 
small  weight  in  its  favor.  We  have  already  noticed  the  coinci- 
dence of  the  mention  of  rd  GToiy^zia  and  vrjTzwi  in  our  passage  and 
in  Gal.  iv.  1-9,  which  seems  to  justify  the  usual  understanding,  viz., 
that  the  Apostle  means,  by  "  the  elements,"  milk  for  babes.  And 
this  may  be  allowed  consistently  with  the  foregoing  explanations, 
if  only  it  is  not  understood  that  teaching  the  elements,  such  as 
the  Apostle  says  is  necessary  for  his  readers,  is  giving  milk  to 
babes.  His  readers  were  drawn  to  use  those  elements  of  cere- 
monial concern  in  the  way  that  pertained  to  a  childish  minority 
in  religion.  Discourse  about  such  elements  among  themselves, 
and  as  they  expected  to  be  talked  to  about  them,  could  only  be 
childish  and  incorrect  speech.  For  that  very  reason  they  need(j|l 
to  be  taught,  about  those  very  elements  of  the  beginning  of  the 
oracles  of  God.  That  teaching,  however,  will  be  discourse  in 
correct  speech,  representing  those  elements  in  their  true  meaning 
and  intent.     Agreeably  to  this  the  Apostle  proceeds  : 

Ver.  14,  But  for  full-grown  men  there  is  the  solid  food,  for 
those  who  by  reason  of  use  have  their  senses  exercised  to  discern 
both  good  and  bad. 

These  words  are  not  meant  merely  to  round  oif  the  sentiment 
of  the  foregoing  verse  by  its  antithesis,  saying  that  solid  food  is 
only  for  those  full  grown.^  It  affirms  what  is  the  food  proper 
for  those  full-grown.^  This  turn  of  thought  is  denoted  by : 
those  full-grown  (zeXsiwJ)  being  put  emphatically  foremost  in  the 
sentence.  The  following  participial  clause  in  apposition  with 
TsXeicov  explains  how  those  that  are  full-grown  were  qualified  to 
receive  the  solid  food.  Their  senses,  by  reason  of  practice,  that 
comes  itself  from  frequent  use,  are  skilled  in  distinguishing  good 
and  bad.  In  all  this,  as  in  ver.  13,  the  Author  means  his  words 
to  have  their  direct  and  proper  sense,  without  blending  phvsical 
and  spiritual  meanings.^  Thus  good  and  bad  mean  things  so 
pronounced  by  the  test  of  the  senses,*  and  especially  the  sense  of 
taste.*     And  all  this  homogeneous  representation  he  intends  as  a 

'  Comp.  Davidson ;  against  Alford.  ^  So  von  Hof. 

^  Against  Alford.  *  So  von  Hof.  ^  Comp.  2  Sam.  xix.  36. 


V.  14."]  Tti   altyf^rjTTj jiia  ytYOn^airixi'^a.  173 

figure  of  what  is  true  in  divine  learning,  and  in  receiving  spiritual 
food.  He  has  expressly  said  that  his  readers  have  become  such 
as  need  milk,  not  solid  food ;  in  other  words,  infants.  He  can- 
not, therefore,  mean  here  to  imply  that  really  they  are  full-grown, 
or  that,  in  view  of  the  long  time  that  they  have  been  Christians, 
they  must  be  dealt  with  as  if  they  were.^  The  meaning  we  have 
obtained  from  ''  on  account  of  the  time,"  obviates  such  confusion 
of  notions.  The  readers  are  infants,  and,  being  unfitted  for 
solid  food,  the  Apostle  will  so  treat  them.  Not  that  he  means 
to  give  them  only  milk,  or  even  milk  at  all.  Nor  must  we  take 
it  that  he  means  to  give  them  solid  food,^  as  if  that  were  the  only 
alternative.  The  very  images  he  uses  leave  room  for  thinking 
of  something  between.  But  the  Author  does  not  leave  that 
unexpressed.  There  is  the  transition  between  using  milk  as 
babes  and  using  solid  food  as  the  full-grown.  Those  that  are 
full-grown  have  hy  a  process  reached  the  condition  that  uses  solid 
food.  Their  organs  of  sense  have  been  developed  by  exercise 
{^ftyoiJ.\ia<ji).i.>(jY  with  a  view  to^  distinguishing  between  good  and 
bad.  And  this  comes  about  as  a  matter  of  habit  or  use.^  All 
this  is  homely  truth,  or  rather  fact. 

It  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Author  adds  this  par- 
ticipial clause  merely  as  an  amplification  of  the  notion  :  "  those 
full-grown,"  or  as  the  qualification  of  zzXzluyj^  As  an  explana- 
tion of  who  are  full-grown,  it  is  needless  ;  as  merely  a  physiologi- 
cal explanation  of  how  they  can  bear  solid  food,  it  is  a  trifling 
digression ;  as  qualifying  -rsAci'wv,  denoting  the  kind  of  adults 
that  may  have  solid  food,  as  if  some  adults  may  not  have  it,  it 
is  absurd.  And  yet  such  a  physiological  observation  is  too 
remarkable  to  be  introduced  without  a  special  purpose.  It  Aas 
point  and  fitness  as  reminding,  that  those  not  full-grown  so  as  to 
be  fitted  to  receive  solid  food,  may  become  such  ;  in  other  words, 
that  immature  Christians,  who  are  unequal  to  receiving  and  using 

'  Against  von  Ilof.,  Diividson.  *  Against  Davidson. 

^Connects  directly  with  t/joc  rfmxp.  «.  r.  "k.  exclusive  oi'fxovruu.     *  Alford. 

^  6ia  Tfjv  e^cv,  not,  "by  use,"  which  Sid  with  accus.  forhids  (see  Alford),  and 
would  be  tautological  taken  with  the  connected  expression;  but  "on  account 
of  habit,"  assigning  the  reason  of  the  thing  predicated.  ®  Alford. 


174  LEAVING    THE    WORD    OF   THE    BEGINNING,      [vi.  1  a. 

such  doctrine  as  is  the  sup]")ort  and  comfort  of  mature  Christians, 
may  become  like  the  latter.  It  will  come  about  by  gradual 
development,  by  exercising  their  spirtual  organs  of  perception 
and  apprehension.  And  the  Apostle  proposes  to  treat  his  readers 
in  tliis  way,  using  such  a  discipline.  He  does  not  mean  to  give 
them  milk ;  neither  does  he  mean  to  treat  them  as  full-grown 
and  giv^e  them  freely  solid  food.  He  means  to  lead  them  on  to 
the  full-grown  condition  ;  as  he  says,  vi.  1  :  "  let  us  press  on  to 
full-gro\vth."  And  it  will  be  found,  as  we  progress  in  the  study 
of  our  Author  from  the  present  point  onwards,  that  he  imposes 
on  his  readers  a  discipline  of  learning  that  admirably  corresponds 
to  the  process  by  which  one  attains  to  the  full-grown  condition 
that  freely  and  habitually  uses  solid  food.  At  every  step,  and 
by  presenting  successively  a  variety  of  matters,  the  spiritual  fac- 
ulty is  exercised  in  distinguishing  between  the  spiritually  good 
and  bad.  Thus,  as  a  matter  of  habit,  the  learner  comes  to  reject 
what  is  noxious,  and  to  keep  and  use  what  is  good,  as  the  adult 
rejects  the  rind  of  the  melon,  and  eats  only  what  is  proper  food. 
Of  course,  in  this  process,  solid  food  is  given.  But  not  as  one 
gives  it  to  the  full-grown.  It  is  as  one  gives  meat  and  fruits  to 
small  children,  teaching  them  in  the  very  act  what  to  use  and 
what  to  throw  away.  Nothing  could  more  accurately  describe 
what  the  Apostle  does  in  vii.  1 — x.  18  with  reference  to  the  ele- 
ments of  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God.  His  readers  were 
for  eating  the  shell.  He  teaches  them  to  throw  away  the  shell 
and  eat  the  kernel. 

VI.  1  a.  "Wherefore,  leavings  the  word  of  the  beginning-  of  Christ 
let  us  press  on  to  fuU-growth. 

The  wherefore  {'^td),  as  already  intimated,  refers  to  what  is 
represented  in  v.  14.  By  that,  the  Apostle  has  signified  that 
there  is  a  process  by  which  the  full-grown  became  qualified  to 
use  solid  food.  By  such  a  process,  his  readers  may  be  similarly 
qualified,  and  in  that  sense  press  on  to  full-gro^^'th.  The  possi- 
bility of  this  furnishes  the  motive  for  undertaking  it,  and  thus 
he  says  :  wherefore.  This  logical  sequence,  which  seems  obvious 
where  once  stated,  shows  that  by  rsXetdrTj?  is  meant  the  same 
notion  as  rihto?  expresses,  v.  14,  viz.,  full-growth.     It  is  thus 


vi.  1   a.]  PRESS    ON   TO   FULL-GROWTIT.  175 

the  full-growth  itself  that  the  Apostle  sets  up  as  the  thing  to  be 
aimed  at ;  aiicl  he  presents  this  very  properly  as  the  goal  for 
those  whom  he  has  pronounced  to  be  as  babes  (v.  13).  And 
this  seems  to  settle  the  much-debated  question  :  in  M'liat  sense 
does  the  Apostle  use  the  first  jw'rson  plural  ?  about  which  expos- 
itors are  equally  divided.^  It  is  not  with  reference  only  to  him- 
self. This  might  seem  the  most  probable,  did  :  let  us  press  on  to 
full-growth  mean  :  let  us  consider  the  higher  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity and  use  solid  food.  With  such  a  meaning  the  Author 
would  be  resuming  the  use  of  the  first  person  plural,  as  he  used 
it  V.  11,  and  would  intimate  his  purpose  to  impart  something  of 
the  "  much  discourse  "  there  referred  to.  We  feel,  liowever,  that 
there  is  something  strange  and  improper  in  encouraging  his 
readers  to  neglect,  even  for  the  present,  such  foundation  matters 
as  are  mentioned  in  our  vers.  1,  2,  in  favor  of  learning  deeper 
mysteries.  But  if  the  proposed  goal  is  to  attain  to  full-growth, 
it  is  the  readers  that  are  to  make  this  attainment,  and  not  the 
Apostle ;  and  he  proposes  this  goal  in  the  first  person  plural  as 
offering'  himself  to  help  them  to  it. 

Presenting  full-growth  as  the  goal,  it  is  a  condition,  a  status 
the  Apostle  would  bring  about.  Consequently,  nothing  in  this 
expression  itself  affirms  one  way  or  other  that  what  the  Apostle 
proposes  to  teach  is  solid  food  or  the  contrary.  "  For  those  full- 
grown  there  is  the  solid  food,"  he  has  said  v.  14.  For  those 
pressinff  on  to  fuU-groirth,  we  ought  to  infer,  there  is  something  dif- 
ferent needed.  And  babes  have  need  of  milk,  he  has  said,  v.  12,  13. 
We  must  equally  infer,  therefore,  that,  for  those  emerging  from 
infancy  and  qualifying  themselves  as  full-grown,  something  else 
is  needed.  What  is  needed,  according  to  the  Author,  we  may 
infer  only  from  what  he  expresses  v.  14,  viz.,  it  is  what  will  exei'- 
cise  their  spiritual  se7ise  so  as  to  distinquish  good  and.  bad.  A  dis- 
cipline of  such  exercise  will  lead  his  readers  on  to  full-gro^^i:h. 
Such  a  discipline  he  proposes  when  he  says  :  let  us  press  on  to 
full-growth. 

In  leading  his  readers  in  such  a  discipline,  the  Author  must 
assume  a  point  of  departure,  and  make  such  a  selection  of  matter 

^  See  Alford,  Liin. 


176  THE   STARTING    POINT   ASSUMED.  [vi.  1  h,  2. 

as  will  best  conduce  to  the  desired  result.  And  both  of  these 
things  he  does  in  the  most  express  manner.  He  expresses  the 
former  by  saying  :  Leaving  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ. 
He  expresses  the  latter  by  saying  : 

Ver.  1  b,  2.  Not  laying  again  a  foundation  of  repentance  from 
dead  works,  and  of  faith  on  God,  and  of  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of 
laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment. 

For  it  is  erroneous  to  suppose,  as  is  commonly  done,  that  these 
two  participial  clauses  mean  the  same  thing,  the  latter  only 
explaining  the  precise  sense  in  which  the  former  is  intended. 
This  confounding  of  two  things  that  are  distinct  produces  confu- 
sion to  which  may  be  ascribed  much  of  the  divergence  of  views 
among  expositors  about  our  verses  1-8.  But  taking  both 
together,  as  expressing  distinct,  yet  connected  things,  we  may 
notice  a  substantial  identity  between  what  is  thus  referred  to  and 
what  the  Author  has  already  mentioned  at  ii.  3,  4.  In  the  pas- 
sage ii.  3,  4,  the  Author  represents  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
in  two  parts,  viz.,  that  which  he  describes  as  "  a  salvation  that 
took  a  beginning  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord."  And  then  that : 
"  it  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard,  God  bearing  wit- 
ness along  with  them,  by  signs  and  wonders  and  divers  powers 
and  distributions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  according  to  His  will."  The 
two  parts  thus  distinguished  are  reflected  in  the  clauses  before  us, 
and  contemplated  in  the  same  relation. 

The  former  expresses  the  beginning  of  all  knowledge  of  Christ 
and  interest  in  Him,  and  is  the  foundation  of  Christian  life  in 
the  sense  of  the  material  that  constitutes  the  foundation,  as  in 
Eph.  ii.  20.  The  latter  refers  to  the  continuation  of  what  is 
thus  begun  in  the  way  of  confirming  it  {i.  e.,  making  fiii3at(><;= 
steadfast).  The  latter  was  the  proper  Apostolic  work.  The 
former,  as  a  finished  work,  must  be  forever  the  same.^  The  lat- 
ter would  vary  with  circumstances,  especially,  according  as  the 
Apostles  and  other  ministers  would  be  dealing  with  those  that 
heard  the  gospel  for  the  first  time,  or  with  such  as  had  known 
and  confessed  it  a  longer  or  shorter  time.     The  former  would 

'  xii.  2 ;  xiii.  8. 


Vi.  1   h,  2.]  CHOOSING  THE   SUBJECT.  177 

also,  indeed,  be  a  concern  of  Apostolic  ministry.  For  tlioy  must 
give  an  account  of  Christ's  ministry  on  eartli.  And  a  suitable 
designation  for  that  would  be  :  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ. 
And  thus^  Mark  entitles  his  gospel:  "The  beginning  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  "  Sucli,  we  may  infer,  was  the  Apostle  Peter's 
own  way  of  naming  that  part  of  his  instruction  that  comprised 
an  account  of  the  acts  and  sayings  of  Christ.  We  make  this 
particular  reference  to  Peter,  because  Mark  was  long  his  compan- 
ion, and,  according  to  reliable  tradition,  wrote  his  gospel  under 
the  influence  of  that  Apostle. 

Our  Author,  then,  proposes  to  leave  the  word  of  the  beginning 
of  Christ,  as  something  well  knoAvn,  and  not  needing  to  be 
repeated,  while  he  would  have  his  readers  press  on  to  full-growtli. 
And  by  this  he  does  not  mean  to  waive  aside  the  consideration  of 
it,  to  leave  it  behind  as  needing  no  consideration.  Nor  does  he 
intimate  that  it  is  inferior,  in  any  sense,  to  the  matter  he  uses. 
He  rather  makes  it  his  point  of  departure,  and  thus,  as  it  were, 
his  base,  and  assumes  it  as  the  premise  of  what  he  is  about  to 
say.  And  notably  the  death,  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Clirist, 
all  matters  pertaining  to  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ, 
constitute  a  most  important  part  of  the  subsequent  discourse. 

Designating,  thus,  his  point  of  departure,  the  Author  also 
intimates  that  he  makes  a  selection  of  matter  that  will  conduce 
to  the  result  he  aims  at,  viz.,  pressing  on  to  full-gro^Ai:!!.  He 
intimates  this  negatively :  not  laying  again  a  foundation  of  repent- 
ance from  dead  works,  etc.  The  naturalness  of  tluis  noticing 
things  he  proposes  not  to  treat  of  appears  plain  enough  when  we 
observe  the  relation  between  our  vers.  1,  2  and  ii.  3,  4.  The 
mention  at  ii.  3  6,  4,  shows  what  was  the  common  way  of  con- 
firming what  began  with  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ. 
It  was,  therefore,  that  which  his  readers  miglit  export  liim  to 
pursue.  And  this  fact,  together  with  tlie  fact  of  having  already 
mentioned  it,  and  that,  too,  as  something  not  to  be  neglected 
without  peril,  makes  it  quite  expedient  tliat  tlie  Author,  while 
preferring  other  matter,  should  show  that  he  does  not  overlook 
this. 

*  Comp.  above  on  ii.  3. 

12 


178  THE   TOPICS   WAIVED   ASIDE  [vi.  1  b,  2. 

Such  a  preference  of  other  matter  of  discourse  to  the  topics  he 
mentions  expresses  no  judgment  as  to  their  intrinsic  or  even 
relative  importance.  It  only  intimates,  that  what  is  waived  aside 
suits  the  Author's  present  purpose  less  than  what  he  actually 
uses.  With  the  object  he  has  in  view  and  the  situation  to  which 
he  speaks,  the  Author  will  use  matter  of  discourse  that  will  dis- 
cipline Jewish  Christians  tending  back  to  Judaism,  in  distin- 
guishing between  good  and  bad.  Thus  we  may  regard  it  as  a 
great  mistake,  to  assume,  as  is  commonly  done,  that  the  Apostle 
intimates,  that  what  he  proposes  to  impart  is  of  the  nature  of 
solid  food,  compared  with  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ, 
and  with  those  things  he  mentions  as  pertaining  to  foundation. 
It  must  be  a  relief  to  most  minds  to  escape  such  an  inference. 
For  it  is  by  no  means  plain  how  the  subjects  treated  in  the  sub- 
sequent discourse  are  deeper  or  higher  than  the  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity that  must  be  denoted  by  the  summary  given  in  our 
verses  1.  2.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  obviously  quite  as 
impossible  to  regard  such  matter  as  follows  in  the  epistle  as  being 
merely  elementary  matter,  or  millv ;  for  it  presents  truths  and 
presents  them  in  a  way  that  calls  for  the  best  exercise  of  a  robust 
spiritual  understanding. 

In  turning  to  consider  the  several  things  pertaining  to  founda- 
tion that  the  Author  announces  a  present  purpose  not  to  treat  of, 
we  may  preface,  as  something  obvious,  that  what  the  Author 
names  only  to  dismiss,  does  not  call  for  comment  from  us  in 
order  to  understand  what  he  does  proceed  to  teach.  His  few 
and  comprehensive  words  of  mention  (vers.  1,  2),  have,  however, 
been  commonly  treated  by  expositors  at  considerable  length.^ 
But  the  labor  expended  in  this  way,  except  to  correct  erroneous 
interpretations,  seems  very  much  as  if  one  were  to  attempt  a 
labored  exposition  of  the  Apostle  Peter's  meaning,  when  he  pro- 
posed putting  up  three  tabernacles  when  Christ  was  transfigured  ; 
wherein  the  record  itself  explains  that  he  did  not  know  what  he 
was  saying.^  As  our  Author  mentions  several  heads  of  doctrine 
only  to  express  the  purpose  of  saying  nothing  about  them,  we 

1  C'omp.  Del.,  Alford.  *  Luke  xix.  33. 


Vi.  1  h,   2.]     NOT  OF  INFERIOR  IMPORTANCE.  179 

consequently  can  knoic  nothing  of  them  beyond  wliat  may  be 
plain  in  the  names  themselves,  as  interpreted  from  other  sources. 
These  names  conveyed  definite  notions  to  his  readers.  They  do  not 
equally  so  to  us,  as  is  manifest  from  the  debates  about  them 
among  expositors.  If  it  were  true,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
that  the  Author  means  to  designate  certain  heads  of  doctrine 
that  are  primary  elements  of  Christian  instruction,  and  which  he 
passes  over  for  that  reason,  then,  of  course,  the  inquiry  as  to 
what  he  means  must  have  the  interest  usually  felt  in  scrutinizing 
what  he  says  here.  Though  the  real  interest  of  that  inquiry  is 
the  difficulty  of  seeing  how  such  matters  of  doctrine  can  be  ele- 
mentary in  the  sense  of  ever  being  something  to  leave  behind,  as 
one  does  his  A.  B.  C.^  But  with  the  understanding  of  the 
Author's  aim  that  w^e  have  reached,  we  have  only  to  notice  how 
the  topics  he  waives  aside  suit  that  aim  less  than  the  topics  he 
proceeds  to  present  and  illustrate.  At  present  we  can  only  notice 
how  they  might  be  fitted  for  his  purpose,  leaving  the  greater  fitness 
of  the  topics  he  prefers  instead,  to  appear  when  we  come  to  consider 
what  he  actually  says  about  them.  As  has  been  already  intimated, 
this  present  fitness  may  be,  as  we  think  it  is,  wholly  determined 
by  the  situation  of  the  readers,  and  not  by  the  nature  of  the  subjects 
named.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  whether  we  treat  them  as  simply 
things  to  know,  or  as  subjects  to  discipline  the  spiritual  mind  in 
distinguishing  good  and  bad,  and  at  the  same  time  actually  con- 
firming them  in  the  good  (which  we  regard  as  the  Author's  real 
aim),  the  matters  of  doctrine  now  mentioned  are  actually  treated 
in  the  New  Testament  in  a  way  to  make  them  (juite  the 
peers  of  those  matters  the  Author  prefers  for  present  treatment. 
On  repentance  from  dead  works  and  faith  toward  God,  compare 
Rom.  i.-ix. ;  Gal.  iii. — v.  12.  On  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
compare  1  Cor.  xv. 

The  Apostle  expresses  a  choice  of  material  for  instruction 
(negatively)  by  :  not  laying  again  foundation.  It  is  common  for 
us  to  use  the  figure  of.  a  foundation  with  reference  to  the  idea  of 
a  superstructure.  And  it  is  usual  to  understand  that  the  Apos- 
tle  here   means  the  same.     And  to  this  interpretation   all   are 

^  Del.,  after  Luther,  on  v.  12. 


180  ^£/iihov  xaTa[iaX)MiJ.svo<s.  [   vi.  1  b,  2. 

inevitably  led  who  suppose  that  he  means  to  discourse  on  higher 
Christian  truths  that  imply  the  previous  foundation  of  elementary 
truths,  and  constitute  a  superstructure  to  it.^  But  our  under- 
standing of  the  Author's  aim  leads  to  no  such  conception. 
Moreover,  common  language  often  uses  the  word  foundation 
without  involving  the  additional  notion  of  a  superstructure. 
When  we  speak  of  being  well-founded  in  the  truth,  we  mean 
being  firmly  established  and  made  steadfast  in  it,  without  dis- 
tinguishing the  notions  of  a  foundation  and  superstructure.  And 
in  the  New  Testament  this  notion  of  a  foundation  {fhiiiXux;) 
occurs  as  much  as  the  other.^  The  foundation  represents  the 
steadfastness,  and  confirmation,  and  immovability,  of  the  things 
concerned ;  and  laying  a  foundation  is  establishing  and  confirm- 
ing, i.  e.,  instituting  in  a  fashion  to  make  firm  and  steadfast 
(^,3i,3a'.i)'i).  And  such  we  suppose  is  the  xVpostle's  meaning  in  the 
present  language,  as  it  obviously  is  at  ii.  3,  4.  In  the  passage 
ii.  3,  4,  confirming  the  word  to  those  that  heard  the  gospel  was 
confirming  them,  so  that  they  should  first  accept  it  with  confi- 
dence, and  then  so  hold  fast  to  it  to  the  end.  And  to  this  notion 
the  Apostle  several  times  recurs.^  Here,  then,  we  note  another 
resemblance  between  our  vers.  i.  2,  and  ii.  3,  4.  When,  there- 
fore, the  Apostle  follows  the  mention  of  the  word  of  the  begin- 
ning of  Christ  with  the  mention  of  laying  a  foundation,  he  means 
making  the  former  and  all  involved  in  it  sure  and  steadfast,  or, 
in  other  words,  confirming  the  readers  in  the  word  of  Christ,  so 
that  they  would  hold  that  with  boldness  firm  unto  the  end.  And 
this  reflection  reveals,  that  the  present  language  conveys  the 
notion  that  the  heads  of  instruction  that  the  Apostle  mentions, 
only  to  pass  from  them,  would  be  one  way  of  achieving  the 
result  he  has  in  view. 

Following  i'}£!iiXu)v  xara^iaX.  =  laying  foundation,  are  various 
nouns  in  the  genitive :  of  repentance,  of  faith,  of  a  doctrine  of 
baptisms,  etc.  These  genitives  do  not,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
describe  the  material  of  which  the  foundaJ:ion  is  composed,  as  is 

1  Comp.  1  Cor.  iii.  10-12. 

'^Comp.  Luke  vi.  48,  49;  1  Tim.  vi.  19;  2  Tim.  ii.  19;  Heb.  xi.  10;  1  Peter 
V.  10;  Eph.  iii.  17;  Col.  i.  23.  ^i^^  q^  14.  ^^  ^g,  19;  xiii.  9. 


Vi.  1  b,   2.]    REPENTANCE  FROM  DEAD  WORKS.  181 

the  case  in  a  similar  construction,  Eph.  ii.  20,  where  apostles  and 
prophets  and  Christ  are  so  represented.  These  are  subjective 
genitives,'  that  express  the  efficient  means  of  giving  foun<latiun. 
Thus  I'fs/jiiXtd^  rciu  I'j^sot)  means  what  God  has  founded  and  made 
him.^  And  so  the  rich  man's  "  foundation  against  the  time  to 
come,"  ^  might  be  called  a  foundation  of  doing  good,  and  of 
munificence  in  good  works,  and  of  willingness  to  share  what  he 
has;  the  things  in  the  genitive  expressing  the  efficient  means  by 
which  he  "  lays  up  in  store  that  good  fjuudation."  So  in  our 
verses,  repentance,  faith,  and  doctrine  of  baptisms,  etc.,  are  the 
efficient  means  by  which  a  foundation  may  be  laid  that  would 
secure  the  steadfastness  of  Christians.'*  The  things  so  mentioned, 
as  far  as  we  know  what  they  mean  (and  only  baptisms  is  very 
obscure),  would  obviously  contribute  to  such  a  result. 

The  Apostle  mentions  first,  repentance  from  dead  works.  This 
is  not  repentance  in  its  general  sense,  which  is  one  of  the  first 
things  announced  as  necessary  to  salvation.  It  is  a  particular 
operation  of  repentance.  Dead  works,  as  an  expression,  recurs 
ao'ain  ix.  14,  and  no  where  else  in  the  New  Testament.  Its  usC' 
in  ix.  14,  shows  a  meaning  that  applied  in  a  peculiar  way  to 
Jews  and  their  relation  to  the  Levitical  institutions.  They  were 
works  done  according  to  the  ceremonial  law,  and  relied  on  as 
having  a  justifying  and  sanctifying  and  saving  efficacy.  They 
are  called  dead  as  having  no  life-power  in  them,  either  because 
done  away  in  the  sense  of  "a  dead  letter,"  or,  because  unable  to 
impart  life.  Repentance  from  dead  works  must  come  from  a 
knowledge  of  this  truth  about  them,  and  show  itself  in  turning 
from  them.  The  complete  notion  of  repentance  always  compre- 
hends something  to  which  one  turns  when  turning  away  from 
something  else.  The  notion  is  completed  here  by  :  and  of  faith 
in  God.  The  Apostle  does  not  use  the  expression :  "  faith  in 
Christ,"  which  is  tlie  usual  concomitant  of  repentance.  This 
may  have  an  explanation  in  the  particular  operation  of  repent- 
ance from  dead  works,  peculiar  to  Jews,  when  becoming  Cliris- 

1  Comp.  Winer,  Gram.  p.  186.  ^  2  Tim.  ii.  10.  '  1  Tim.  vi.  lit. 

*  Comp.  ^//ftn/Ac  x^'pog  rriariv  =  "give  a  promise  made  by  the  hand,"  Kiili- 
ner,  Gramm.  II.,  p.  287. 


182  DOCTEINES   OF   BAPTISMS,  ETC.  [vi.  1  b,  2. 

tians.  It  may  be  because  faith  in  Christ  is  the  result  at  which 
the  instruction  would  aim,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  itself  the 
means  of  founding  itself,  which  faith  on  God  may  be.  When, 
soon  after,  at  ver.  12,  the  Apostle  adduces  an  example  of  faith, 
it  is  the  faith  of  Abraham  on  God,  with  reference  to  God's 
promise,  which  faith  was  the  sole  cause  of  his  steadfastness. 
And  the  same  faith  must  be  to  the  Christian  the  strong  confidence 
of  Ms  hope  (ver.  18).  The  two  items,  thus  far  mentioned,  are 
experiences  that  initiate  the  Christian's  relation  to  Christ.  Those 
that  follow  continue  that  relation  by  means  of  the  doctrinal  con- 
siderations involved  in  them,  which  confirm  the  faith  already 
begun. 

The  Apostle  adds  :  of  doctrine  ^  of  baptisms,  etc.  We  are  led, 
by  the  logical  sense  of  the  things  here  enumerated  and  their 
necessary  relation  to :  "  laying  a  foundation,"  to  take  dcdaxrji 
=  of  a  doctrine,  as  the  genitive  directly  connecting  with  I'/e/iihov  = 
foundation,  and  the  other  substantives  in  the  genitive  as  depend- 
ent on  diliayj^^?  By  doctrine  here  is  meant  the  same  sort  of 
thing  as  by  "  doctrines,"  xiii.  9,  where  ''  divers  and  strange  doc- 
trines "  mean  such  as  Judaizing  teachers  inculcated  concerning 
"  meats."  Here  the  Apostle  means  doctrines  derived  from  and 
illustrated  by  the  things  referred  to  in  baptisms,  laying  on  hands, 
etc.,  and  derived  in  ihe  same  fashion  as  he  proceeds  to  derive 
doctrine  from  the  consideration  of  Melchizedek,  the  Levitical 
priesthood  and  sacrifices,  and  as  he  has  been  doing  from  consid- 
eration of  the  high-priestly  office.  By  doctrine,  therefore,  he 
does  not  refer  to  the  loci  communes  of  Christian  instruction,  such 
as  his  readers  might  be  presumed  to  be  already  familiar  with, 
certainly  to  have  been  taught.  The  expression  of  such  a  definite 
notion  would  seem  to  require,  the  article  :  ri^?  dc(Jayr^(^.  He  means 
such  doctrine  as  he  would  impart  were  he  proposing  to  found  and 
confirm  ^  his  readers  by  considering  such  matters  as  he  mentions 
now,  instead  of  those  he  actually  chooses  to  discourse  about. 
The  things  he  mentions  are,  by  their  very  names,  and  especially 

^  Westc.  and  H.,  and  Lach.,  read  didaxvv,  instead  of  6i6axv?  that  is  common 
to  other  editions.  ^  See  in  Alford. 

^  Comp.  T&efieliuaei  1  Pet.  v.  10 ;  and  jSefiaiova'&ai,  Heb.  xiii.  9. 


vi.  1  h,  2.]  LAYING   ON   HANDS.  183 

as  those  names  are  conjoined  with  "  the  word  of  Christ,  repent- 
ance from  dead  works,  and  faith  on  God,"  to  be  understood  of 
Christian  things,  and  not,  as  some  suppose,*  of  Old  Testament 
matters,  nor  of  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  matters  com- 
bined,^ as  many  suppose,  at  least,^  in  reference  to  baptisms. 

AVhat  the  Apostle  means  by  baptisms,  in  the  plural,  is  obscure. 
If,  for  the  reasons  just  given,  we  confine  the  reference  to  what 
was  purely  Christian,  the  reference  of  the  plural  may  be  to  the 
frequency  of  the  observance  of  the  ordinance ;  it  being  required 
of  every  one  that  believed  that  he  should  also  be  baptized.^  And 
discourse  on  this  (not  merely  on  the  significance  of  the  ordinance 
itself,  but  also  on  the  need  of  every  Christian  to  be  baptized) 
after  the  fashion  of  Rom.  vi.  1-14,  would,  mutatis  mutandis, 
confirm  the  conviction  that  a  Christian  must  no  longer  live  in 
"  dead  works ; "  as  in  Rom.  vi.  1-14,  the  reasons  derived  from 
baptism  show  how  all  Christians  so  baptized  must  "reckon 
themselves  dead  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  in  Christ  Jesus." 
A  distinction  founded  on  the  different  words  used  for  baptism,  viz., 
iSaTTTCfT/xo^  here  and  the  more  common  pdnziap-a,  has  been  proposed 
by  Jac.  Cappellus,  and  is  adopted  by  Alford.  And  accordingly, 
our  ^a-zTiiyijM  is  supposed  to  refer  comprehensively  to  Christian, 
Johannic  and  Jewish  baptisms,  regarded  as  ceremonial  washings. 
The  only  weighty  consideration  in  favor  of  this,  as  opposed  to 
the  considerations  we  have  allowed  to  determine  us  already,  is 
the  recurrence  of  ^a-naiw^,  ix.  10.  But  our  Author  refers  there 
to  the  washings  in  question  with  a  reprobation  that  leaves  no 
room  for  imagining  that  he  would  make  them  a  topic  for  doc- 
trinal instruction  in  any  other  fashion  than  appears  there. 

Of  laying  on  hands,  is  next  mentioned,  and  this  so  closely  con- 
joined with  "  baptisms "  (by  re)  as  to  make  these  two  items  a 
pair.  This  is  what  we  might  expect  from  what  we  learn  in  the 
Acts  (viii.  15-17  ;  xix.  5  sq.),  which  gives  us  our  clearest  informa- 
tion with  regard  to  tliat  Apostolic  practice.  In  their  ministry  it 
followed  the  athuinistratiou  of  baptism,  and  signified  the  bestowal 

'  Comp.  Macnight.  *  As  Tholuck  in  Lindsay,  Alford. 

^  See  Liin.  *  So  von  liof.     Comp.  Calvin. 


184  EESUERECTION   OF   THE   DEAD.  [vi.  1  b,  2. 

of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  was  often  attended  by  mira- 
culous demonstrations.  And  if  we  have  been  correct  in  tracing  as 
above  a  parallel  between  our  verses  1,  2,  and  ii.  3,  4,  then  we  I 

may  suppose  that,  by  laying  on  of  hands,  the  Author  means  to 
notice,  by  a  briefer  expression,  what  he  refers  to  in  ii.  4,  as  God's 
bearing  testimony  with  the  preachers  of  the  word  by  signs  and 
Avonders  and  distributions  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     If  we  would  ^ 

conjecture  how  he  would  likely  use  this  topic  to  profit  his  read-  ' 

ers  in  their  peculiar  danger,  we  might  refer  to  Gal.  iii.  1-5. 
For  there  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  evinced  by  the  receipt  and 
display  of  supernatural  gifts,  being  wholly  indejiendent  of  any 
teaching  or  observance  of  Jewish  ceremonial  institutions,  is 
pointed  to  as  a  proof,  that  God  did  not  lay  any  such  law  on 
Christians,  but  that  Christians,  as  Paul  said  of  himself,  "  are 
dead  through  law  that  they  might  live  to  God."  ^  Certainly  the 
tone  of  rebuke  in  that  passage,  and  the  general  tenor  of  what  is 
said,  would  admirably  fit  in  the  present  context,  \\\\\\q,  the 
expression :  ivap^d/ievoc  -'^su/iart,  vhv  (Tapxi  k-KmXsTfff^h  =  "  having 
begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye  now  perfected  in  the  flesh  ?"  presents 
a  remarkable  identity  both  of  thought  and  phrase. 

Resurrection  of  the  dead  and  eternal  judgment  make  the  last 
pair  [rs-xai)  of  the  topics  mentioned.  There  is  scarcely  need  for 
remarking  that  these  two  subjects  were  in  Apostolic  preaching 
put  boldly  front,  and  announced  together  in  the  same  breath,^ 
and  confessed  to  be  essential  Christian  truths.  How  the  Apostle 
might  handle  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  in  such  a  way  as 
to  found  and  make  steadfast  believers  that  were  tempted  to  let  go 
their  hold  on  Christ  for  the  fallacious  confidence  of  dead  works, 
we  may  conjecture  from  recurring  again  to  Rom.  vi.  1—11,  and 
also  to  Phil.  iii.  3-11 ;  Col.  ii.  20 — iii.  1.  And  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, with  reference  to  the  eternal  judgment,  we  may  compare 
Rom.  ii.  1-16,  Avhere,  according  to  the  Apostle's  gospel,  Gentile 
and  Jew  must  alike  be  judged  by  Christ  in  the  great  day,  and 
thus  everything  for  future  life  depends  on  holding  to  Christ  by 
faith. 

The  light  thrown  on  the  topics  mentioned  in  our  vers.  1,  2,  by 
*  Gal.  ii.  19,  comp.  J.  B.  Liglitfoot,  in  loc.  ^  Comp.  Acts  xvii.  13. 


Vi.  3.]  ETERNAL   JUDGMENT.  185 

the  foregoiDg  reflections  and  comparisons  of  Paul's  discourses 
elsewhere,  must,  we  think,  make  it  plain  that  the  xVpostle  does 
not  mean  to  intimate  that  they  are  elementary  Christian  things 
like  milk  for  babes.  It  is  equally  plain  that  they  aflorded 
material  for  instruction  that,  in  competent  hands,  could  be 
handled  in  a  way  to  correct  and  restrain  those  that  miirlit  be 
tempted  to  forsake  Christ  for  Judaism  ;  and  also  to  afford  strong 
meat  or  solid  food  as  much  as  anything  the  Author  actually  pro- 
ceeds to  discourse  on.  Moreover,  they  would  be,  according  to 
the  manner  of  Apostolic  instruction,  the  topics  the  Apostle  might 
be  expected  to  deal  with ;  and  thus  his  passing  them  by  would 
call  for  some  notice. 

Beside  these  conclusions  just  expressed,  we  thmk  the  foregoing 
observations  on  the  topics  the  Author  mentions  must  prompt  the 
reflection,  that  these  are  the  topics  that  Paul  would  have  handled 
to  instruct  a  situation  like  the  present,  and  the  passages  of  his 
letters  cited  above  show  how  he  would  have  handled  them.  We 
think,  however,  that  we  see  more  than  this  from  such  evidence. 
We  do  not  see  in  the  Author  only  one  of  like  mind  with  Paul 
and  his  peer  in  argument,  but  different  in  his  choice  of  material. 
AVe  see  the  evidences  that  the  same  Apostle  is  the  Author  here, 
with  only  the  difference  that  was  necessary  when  writing  to 
Jewish  Christians  instead  of  Gentile  Christians,  or  churches 
composed  chiefly  of  Gentiles.     The  Apostle  continues  : 

Ver.  3.  Also  this  we  will  do  if  God  permit.  The  view  we 
have  taken  of  the  matters  referred  to  in  the  participial  clause 
(vers.  1,  2)  beginning  Avith  :  not  again  laying  a  foundation,  etc., 
makes  it  very  natural  to  take  T<r>r<>  =  this,  as  referring  to  that 
way  of  founding  the  readers.^  Other  considerations  confirm  this 
construction.  The  nocrj/ro/is'^  (indie.)  requires  it.  The  remoter 
reference  to  (fsputizfta  would  require  -inrj<To)ij.sv  (subj.)^  and  ex- 
plains that  reading.  Moreover,  rovro  is  to  be  referred  to  the 
nearest  antecedent,  unless  it  is  evident  that  the  more  remote  "  is 
mentally  nearer."^     And  in  vers.  4-G  (which  give  the  reason  for 


^  So  von  Hof. ;  see  others  in  Alford. 

^  [Griesb.,  Lachm.],  Bleek,  Del.,  Alford,  Liin.  '  Winer  Gram.  p.  157. 


186  IF   GOD   PEEMIT. 

adding  :  if  God  permit,  by  showing  a  situation  wherein  God  may 
not  permit),  the  point  of  what  is  represented  is  expressed  in  the 
words  :  "  impossible  to  renew  to  repentance,"  which  reflects  the 
expression  :  "  laying  a  foundation  of  repentance."  Thus  there 
is  a  close  logical  connection,  as  if  the  Author  said  :  we  will  lay 
again  a  foundation  of  repentance,  etc.,  if  God  permit,  for  it  is 
impossible  to  renew  some  to  repentance.  Moreover,  we  may  ask, 
with  von  Hofmann :  wjiy  should  not  God  permit  one  to  press  on  to 
full-growth  as  a  Christian  ?  Where  is  it  written  that  God  may  not 
permit  one  to  do  well  ?  We  must,  therefore,  understand,  that  our 
verse  expresses  the  purpose  of  doing  what  the  Apostle  expresses 
may  not  be  done  at  present.  He  will  do  it  if  God  permit.  And 
here,  from  the  nature  of  the  doing  referred  to,  we  must  under- 
stand the  first  person  plural  to  refer  to  the  Apostle  himself  alone. 
As  for  those  to  whom  this  purpose  would  relate,  it  is  evident 
that  they  are  others  than  the  readers  whom  the  Apostle  now 
addresses  ;  first  from  the  character  of  the  representation  that  fol- 
lows vers.  4-8,  and  then  from  the  express  language  to  that  effect 
ver.  9  sqq. 

The  expressed  condition  of  his  doing  this  is  not  the  mere  Deo 
volenti  of  common  discourse.^  There  are  considerations  that 
cause  apprehension  that  God  will  not  permit  what  the  Apostle 
would  do.  How  this  may  be,  he  proceeds  to  explain  in  the 
affirmation  of  vers.  4-8,  which  yap  =  for  introduces  as  a  reason. 
But  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  says  he  will  do  it  if  God  permit, 
expressly  signifies  that  it  is  something  God  may  permit,  in  which 
case  he  will  do  wliat  is  needful  to  it.  And  this  is  plainly  inti- 
mated with  reference  to  the  persons  the  Apostle  proceeds  to 
describe,  for  he  has  them  in  mind.  The  observation  just  made 
should  be  borne  in  mind  while  considering  w^iat  follows,  vers. 
4-8.  It  is  an  antecedent  intimation  of  the  possibility  of  that 
which  is  about  to  be  declared  impossible.  As  such,  it  requires 
us  to  understand  the  subsequent  affirmation  with  a  qualification  ; 
which  qualification,  we  may  suppose,  is  indicated  by  the  context. 
And  we  may  anticipate  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  qualification  is 
two-fold.  It  is  impossible,  while  the  doing  of  the  persons 
^  Comp.  1  Cor.  xvi.  7.  ^  Against  Davidson. 


vi.  3.]  RESUME  OF  ii.  17-vi.  4.  187 

referred  to  is  equivalent  to  crucifying  the  Son  of  God  ;  and, 
again,  if  God  shall  visit  such  a  crime  with  the  swilt  punishment 
it  deserves,  (vers.  6  b,  8.) 

In  order  to  enter  into  the  thought  of  the  Author  at  this  point, 
let  us  recover  some  of  the  ground  he  has  already  gone  over. 

At  ii.  17,  18  we  have  noticed  that  the  Author  has  already 
introduced  what  is  now  to  be  the  topic  of  discourse  for  the  pur- 
pose just  expressed,  vi.  1.  The  purpose  is  "  to  press  on  to  full- 
growth."  The  topic  of  discourse  is  "  Christ  a  merciful  and 
faithful  Hight  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God  "  (ii.  1 7) ; 
which  topic  the  Author  has  already  begun  to  treat  of  at  iv.  14, 
and  interrupts  by  the  digression  v.  11 — vi.  20,  of  which  our 
verses  4-8  form  a  part.  But  at  iii.  1  the  Author  presents  the 
subject  introduced  ii.  17,  18,  in  a  double  aspect,  viz.,  ''Jesus  the 
Apostle  and  High  Priest,"  and  he  first  makes  Jesus  the  Apostle 
the  topic  of  discourse,  comparing  Him  with  Moses.  The  dis- 
course on  this  topic  is  comprised  in  iii.  1 — iv.  13,  in  which  the 
Author  first  (iii.  1-6)  represents  the  superiority  of  Jesus  to 
Moses,  with  reference  to  the  house  of  God,  and  then  (iii.  7 — iv. 
13)  continues  with  a  digression  consisting  of  a  warning  (iii.  7—19), 
followed  (iv.  1-13)  by  exhortation  that  introduces  new  matter 
suited  to  the  general  aim  of  the  epistle,  /.  c,  suited  to  jiiake  the 
readers  steadfast  in  their  Christian  profession.  With  regard  to 
the  warning  (iii.  7-19),  we  noted  in  its  proper  place  how  its 
underlying  thought  is  related  to  ii.  1-3.  In  both  ii.  1-3  and 
iii.  7  sqq.  the  readers  are  treated  as  they  are  introduced  at  i.  1, 
viz.,  as  the  one  people  of  God  that  had  been  favored  with  a  word 
of  revelation  of  God,  differing  only,  as  time  moved  on,  in  the 
character  of  what  was  revealed.  The  view-point  common  to  ii. 
1-3  and  iii.  7  sqq.  is  that  the  readers  are,  as  those  of  old,  under 
the  dispensation  ministered  by  angels,  with  the  difference  that 
the  Son  of  God  has  spoken  to  them  a  word  that  offers  them 
escape  from  the  operation  of  that  angelic  ministry,  which, 
attended,  as  it  necessarily  was,  with  transgression,  is  now  attended 
by  impending  judgment  and  punishment.  At  ii.  1—3  the  warn- 
ing is  to  escape,  as  to  those  that  have  heard  of  the  way  to  do  so. 
And  Avhat  they  must  escape  is  the  same  punishment  that  was 


188  EESUME  OF  ii.  17-vi.  4.  [vi.  3. 

appointed  for  the  transgression  that  was  the  same  for  all  that 
were  under  the  word  spoken  by  angels.  At  iii.  7  sqq.  the  warn- 
ing differs  only  in  this,  that  now  the  readers  are  treated  as 
persons  that  had  professed  to  accept  the  salvation  offered,  and  in 
whom,  therefore,  what  would  before  have  been  only  neglect,  must 
now  be  apostasy.  The  warning,  accordingly,  is  still  more  sol- 
emn. It  is  a  warping  to  beware  of  becoming  apostates.  But 
the  punishment  to  be  apprehended  for  such  is  still  the  penalty 
attending  the  word  spoken  by  angels,  of  which  the  example  is 
taken  from  the  embitterment  in  the  wilderness.  And  it  is 
expressly  intimated,  that  if  the  readers  incur  the  punishment  of 
apostasy,  their  doing  and  its  punishment  will  be,  not  simply 
like,  but  an  example  of  the  same  thing  that  occurred  in  the 
embitterment  in  the  wilderness  (iv.  11).  Moreover,  we  have 
found  that  the  Author  (iii.  12)  refers  to  a  definite  apostasy  that 
is  in  prospect,  and  this  gives  the  motive  for  that  urgency  to 
exhort  one  another  in  order  to  prevent  unbelief,  treachery  and 
disobedience,  and  to  enter  into  the  promised  rest.  After  this 
digression  of  warning,  the  Author  recurs  (iv.  14  sqq.)  to  his 
subject  of  ii.  17,  18,  discoursing  now  about  Christ  as  High 
Priest,  which  continues  to  be  the  subject  of  discourse,  except  as 
it  is  interrupted  by  the  present  digression,  v.  11 — vi.  20,  of 
which  our  verses  4-8  form  a  part. 

This  digression,  too,  is,  like  iii.  7 — iv.  13,  composed  of  a  warn- 
ing (v.  11 — vi.  8)  followed  by  exhortation,  with  introduction  of 
new  matter  thereby  suggested  (vers.  9-20),  suited  to  the  general 
aim  of  this  epistle.  But  the  view-point  is  not  changed  from  that 
of  the  warning  at  ii.  7  sqq.  This  appears  from  the  meaning  we 
ascertained  for  the  words  :  "  ye  ought  to  be  teachers  on  account 
of  the  time"  (v.  12).  It  is  a  time  that  calls  for  such  teaching 
as  is  meant  by  :  "  exhort  one  another  while  after  so  long  a  time 
it  is  called  :  To-day."  It  further  appears  that  the  view-point  is 
not  changed,  from  the  obvious  fact  that  our  verses  4—8  represent 
a  situation  of  actual  apostasy,  which  must  be  understood  to  rep- 
resent the  character  of  that  apostasy  that  the  Author  has  already 
made  a  subject  of  warning  (iii.  12).  Thus  it  appears  that  the 
present  warning  is  but  a  resumption  of  that  in  iii.  7  sqq.  which 


vi.  3.]  RESUME  OF  ii.  17-vi.  4.  189 

differs  from  the  warning  already  given  only  in  something  that 
marks  progress  in  the  thought.  But  being  a  resumption  of  the 
warning  there,  it  mud  assume  the  notions  represented  there,  as  pre- 
sent in  the  readers  mind.  Now,  at  iii.  6,  the  Author  says  of  him- 
self and  his  readers  :  "  we  are  the  house  of  God  if  we  hold  stead- 
fast the  boldness  and  the  boast  of  the  hope  until  the  end."  In 
this  the  holding  steadfast  till  the  end  is  the  emphatic  notion. 
And  tlie  warning  that  follows  (iii.  7  sqq.)  is  intended  to  move 
the  readers  to  needful  diligence  in  that  respect,  and  it  reiterates 
the  very  expression  again  (iii.  14),  saying :  "  we  are  companions 
of  Christ  if  we  hold  steadfast  the  boldness  till  the  end."  That 
persevering  boldness  of  hope  is  imperiled  by  "hardening"  that 
is  induced  by  "  deceit  of  the  sin  "  by  which  is  meant,  particularly, 
the  allurements  to  turn  from  Christ  to  Judaism.  The  consequence 
of  yielding  to  these  seductive  influences  is  represented  in  descrip- 
tive terms  drawn  from  the  embitterment  in  the  wilderness,  which 
gives  tlie  type  of  what  their  sin  would  be  and  of  its  punishment. 
It  is  the  sin  of  Christians  the  Author  speaks  of,  and  their  apos- 
tasy would  be  from  Christ,  and  the  thing  they  must  forfeit  would 
be  salvation.  But,  using  Old  Testament  terms  of  expression, 
the  Author  calls  their  sin  :  hardening  the  heart,  and  the  apostasy 
is  said  to  be  from  God,  and  what  they  forfeit  is  the  promise  of 
God's  rest.  Yet  such  representation  of  Christian  things  by  terras 
drawn  from  the  ancient  situation  is  perfectly  true  to  the  Christian 
situation.  The  terms  cover  both  cases ;  and  their  very  use  in 
this  way  expresses  the  essential  identity  of  the  two  situations 
better  than  could  be  done  in  any  other  way. 

In  the  present  context  (v.  11 — vi.  20)  the  Author  warns  his 
readers  about  the  same  subject.  But  in  our  verses  4-8  he 
approaches  it  more  closely.  In  iii.  7  sqq.  he  warns  against  the 
danger  of  apostasy.  Here  he  represents  the  state  of  one  that 
actually  has  apostatized,  and  tells  what  it  jgicans.  It  means  a 
situation  that  admits  of  no  efforts  to  renew  them  to  repentance,* 
and  for  which  destruction  is  at  hand.  For  in  the  j^ni-able  by 
which  he  illustrates  this  solemn  truth,  he  adds  the  trait :  "  it  is 
rejected  and  nigh  unto  a  curse,  whose  end  is  to  be   burned." 

'  Comp.  xii.  16,  17. 


190  RESUME  OF  ii»  17-vi.  4.  [vi.  4,  5. 

What  is  thus  represented  is  in  order  to  explain  why  the  condi- 
tion, "if  God  permit,"  is  expressed.  The  situation  of  actual 
apostasy  is  one  where  God  may  not  permit  such  eiforts  to  renew 
to  repentance ;  and  thus,  to  the  apostate,  such  discipline  of  which 
the  Author  now  says  :  this  we  will  do,  would  be  in  vain.  One  of 
the  reasons  for  this  is  a  question  of  time.  God  will  soon  (x.  25) 
make  known  His  mind  toward  that  state  by  sending  destruction, 
on  the  apostates.  So  that  the  Utile  time  left  is  one  of  the  factors  in 
the  question  whether  God  will  permit. 

In  this  representation  the  Author  moves  in  the  same  sphere  of 
notions  that  prevail  in  the  warning  of  iii.  7  sqq.  The  reasonable 
inference  is,  that  he  expresses  himself  in  the  same  way.  In  other 
M'ords,  he  represents  the  situation  of  apostasy  from  Christ  in  terms 
draumfrom  that  ancient  and  first  apostasy  of  God's  people  in  the 
wilderness.  The  terms  cover  both  cases ;  and  he  does  this  in 
order,  in  an  impressive  manner,  to  identify  them  as  essentially 
the  same.  So  doing,  the  minds  of  his  readers,  reverting  naturally 
to  the  facts  of  that  ancient  apostasy,  and  its  catastrophe,  would 
identify  the  truthfulness  of  what  is  affirmed  of  the  present  situa- 
tion. As  corroborative  illustration  of  the  Author's  manner  of 
blending  Old  and  New  Testament  notions,  we  may  refer  to  xi. 
25  where,  conversely,  he  represents  an  Old  Testament  act  by  an 
expression  drawn  from  the  Christian  situation,  and  says  :  Moses 
"  esteemed  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  trea- 
sures of  Egypt."  And  again,  xiii.  13  he  represents  a  Christian 
act  by  terms  drawn  from  the  situation  in  the  wilderness  :  "  Let 
lis  go  to  him  without  the  camp  bearing  his  reproach." 
Approaching,  then,  our  verses  4-8  from  the  point  of  view  now 
ascertained,  and  with  the  understanding  of  the  Author's  choice 
of  terms  just  stated,  we  have  a  clue  to  his  meaning,  and  may  form 
a  just  opinion  of  the  terms  he  employs.  The  application  of  the  cri- 
terion, thus  aflPorded,  will  quickly  decide  whether  it  is  a  correct  one. 
The  direct  affirmation  of  vers.  4—8  is  that:  it  is  impossible  to 
renew  again  to  repentance  persons  whose  character  the  Author 
describes.  Impossible  [aSuvazo-^)  is  an  unequivocal  expression 
that  admits  of  no  mitigation  in  sense,  such  as  i  "  very  difficult ;"  * 
'  See  authors  cited  in  Alford. 


vi.  4,  5. J  TOU9   a~a^   <fuJTt(T>'^ivTa<^.  191 

or,  impossible  in  sensn  forcns^i.^  It  must  be  taken  absolutely. 
But  the  notion  expressed  bv  :  renew  again  to  repentance  oltviously 
requires  for  its  understanding  a  clear  notion  of  the  situation 
referred  to  by  again.  For  it  expresses  reinstatement  again  in  a 
position  previously  described.  That  situation  is  represented  in 
the  terms  that  describe  the  persons  referred  to  previous  to  the 
^condition  that  is  declared  to  be  incapable  of  renewal  again  to 
repentance.  Tliese  persons  are  dcscrib(>d  as  :  those  having  been 
once  enlightened  and  having  tasted  the  heavenly  gift  and  having 
become  companions  of  a  holy  spirit  and  having  tasted  a  good  word 
of  God  and  powers  of  a  world  to  come.  These  participial  clauses 
we  construe  as  follows  :  ^  the  article  row?  belongs  to  <fturtfr>'ti'^Ta? 
alone,  and  does  not  extend  to  the  following  participles.  This  is 
necessitated  by  the  arra^  =  once,  which  is  quite  proper  as  qualify- 
ing enlightened,  but  has  no  propriety  as  applied  to  experiences 
described  by  tasting,  and  becoming  companions  of  a  holy  spirit. 
Enlightenment  is  an  experience  which,  when  it  comes,  is  a  thing 
done  ;  while  tasting  is  something  that  involves  repeated  applica- 
tion. Moreover,  the  re,  that  adjoins  the  following  participial 
expressions  to  (fivTCfr'^i^ra?,  denotes  that  they  are  not  coordinate 
expressions  with  it,"*  but  added  as  expressing  notions  involved  in 
the  fact  of  having  been  once  enlightened.  And  this  rs,  with  the 
two  following  participial  expressions  conjoined  by  xa] — xa),  leads 
up  to  the  adversative  xai  ■KapaTts(7<)VTa<;*  (ver.  6). 

So  construed,  the  most  significant  term  before  us  is  :  those 
having  been  once  enlightened.  By  ^wrt'^etv  is  meant  simply  "to 
inform  "  or  "  give  intelligence  "  of  any  thing,  so  that  what  one 
was  ignorant  of  he  is  made  to  know,^  and  where  he  was  in  the 
dark  he  is  made  to  see  as  in  the  light.  What  one  was  made  to 
know  and  see  is  not  here  expressed.  But  the  expression  is  used 
absolutely  as  at  x.  32,  as  though  the  matter  of  enlightenment 
must  be  understood.  The  logical  coimection  of  x.  26,  32  shows 
that  illumination  in  "  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  "  is  what  is 
meant.     And  the  whole  tenor  of  our  epistle,  as  well  as  the  pre- 

>  Jer.  Taylor :  Doctrine  and  Practice  of  Eejientance  ix.  ?  4. 

''With  von  Ilof.  'See  Winer,  Gramra.  pp.  434,  43r). 

*  So  von  ITof.  *  Conip.  Eph.  iii.  9. 


192  TASTING   THE    HEAVENLY    GIFT.  [vi.  4,  5. 

sent  context  and  the  context  at  x.  26,  makes  it  plain,  that  the 
Apostle  has  particularly  in  mind  the  knowledge  of  what  was  the 
intent  of  Christ's  sacrificial  death  on  the  cross,  and  the  efficacy  of 
"  the  blood  of  the  covenant "  there  shed  to  sanctify  believers. 
As  has  been  already  noted,  the  Apostle  appropriately  says  :  once 
{ar.a'=)  enlightened,  because  seeing  is  in  its  nature  something  that 
occurs  once  for  all.  What  one  sees  is  henceforth  to  him  a  visible 
thing.'  But  by  expressing  the  fact,  the  Apostle  means  to  note 
that  what  the  persons  he  describes  do,  viz.,  "  crucifying,"  etc., 
(ver.  6  b),  they  do  against  light  and  knowledge,  and  not  as  if 
the  enlightenment  were  again  "  swallowed  up  by  the  prev^ious 
darkness."  ^ 

To  the  "enlightening"  the  Apostle  adjoins  (by  t£ — y.a\ — y.ai) 
three  other  experiences  that  are  involved  in  the  former  as  attend- 
ants on  it.  The  first  of  these  is  :  and  having  tasted  the  heavenly 
gift.  It  is  misleading  to  suppose  that  this  expresses  something 
subsequent  to  the  experience  denoted  by  :  "  having  been  enlight- 
ened." Influenced  thus,  expositors  have  named  a  variety  of 
things  as  being  intended  by  the  heavenly  gift,  such  as  remission 
of  sins,  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  the  Lord's  supper,  etc.^  It  is 
not  a  different  thing  from  what  is  referred  to  bv  :  "  having;  been 
enlightened,"  that  the  Apostle  means.  In  Eph.  iii.  7-9,  Paul 
names  the  gospel  "  of  which  he  w'as  made  a  minister,  according 
to  the  gift  (jr^v  8u)p-d-?)  of  the  grace  of  God  which  w^as  given  (r^? 
8u)f^ei(jy^<i)  unto  him  according  to  the  M'orking  of  his  power  (t?;? 
duvdfieaxs  adrou),''  as  that  by  wliose  preaching  he  was  to  enlighten 
(jiptoTitTat)  all  men.  And  here  the  gift  has  the  same  meaning  with 
reference  to  the  "  enlightening,"  *  and  expresses  that  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth  was  a  gracious  gift ;  while  heavenly,  as  is 
always  the  meaning  of  iTzoupdvco'?,^  expresses  that  it  was  a  matter 
revealed  from  God  and  not  before  or  by  other  means  known  on 
earth.^  But  the  principal  notion  of  the  clause  before  us,  and 
what  constitutes  the  progress  of  thought,  is  not  in  the  expres- 
sion "  the  heavenly  gift,"  but  in  yeuffa/xivnu?  =  having  tasted.  This 

'  Comp.  Davidson.  *  Against  Del.        ^  See  in  Alford. 

*  Comp.  John  iv.  10,  and  Lindsay.  *  Comp.  John  iii.  12,  13. 

»  Comp.  Eph.  iii.  5,  9. 


vi,  4,  5.]  COMPANIONS   OF   A    HOLY  SPIRIT.  193 

denotes  a  practical  experience,  attending  tlie  knowledge  received, 
that  verifies  the  reality  of  the  latter.  It  is  thus  that  the  Aj)ostle 
Peter  uses  the  same  expression :  "  If  ye  have  tasted  that  the 
Lord  is  gracious."  ^ 

The  next  trait  that  is  mentioned  of  the  persons  described  is  : 
and  having  become  companions  of  a  Holy  Spirit.  We  can  see  no 
sufficient  reason  for  not  rendering /yiro^^o^  -  companion  -  here  as 
we  have  done  i.  9  ;  iii.  14.  The  word  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment only  Luke  v.  7,  beside  in  our  epistle,  where  it  is  used  i.  9  ; 
iii.  1,  14;  vi.  4;  xii.  8.  In  all  these  places  "companions"  or 
"  partners "  gives  a  good  meaning,  while  in  most  of  them  no 
other  meaning  is  admissible.  In  the  LXX.  ^  this  is  the  com- 
mon meaning.  Where  /xiTo^o?  is  joined  with  a  su])stantive  in 
the  genitive  denoting  a  person,  then  companion  is  the  most 
obvious  meaning.  It  is  only  because  there  is  a  mystical  com- 
munion between  Christ  and  believers,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
believers,  that  we  find  it  possible  to  understand  iiiroxo^,  when 
joined  with  those  names  in  the  genitive,  as  meaning  "  partaker," 
in  the  sense  of  receiving  something  of  them.  In  anv  other  per- 
sonal connection,  as  :  /liroj^o?   iytu   eiiu   -Kdvzwv  TU)v  (/ioj3ou;j.iviov    <ts* 

that  meaning  would  be  impossible.  Thus,  though  "  partakers 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  in  the  sense  of  receiving  of  the  self-impar- 
tation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  correct  notion,  Ave  may  doubt 
whether  psr.  m^up.ar.  dyiou  is  intended  as  the  expression  of  it. 
Certainly  we  are  justified  in  understanding  it  to  express  tliat  we 
are  companions  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  if  we  find  elsewlicre  the  evi- 
dence that  this  was  a  familiar  notion.  Of  this  there  is  evidence 
enough.^     The  leader  of  Christians  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  "as 

'  1  Pet.  ii.  3.  "^  Wyclif  translated  the  Vulg.,  ■partinpv^  =  partners. 

'  See  Schlensuer,  Lex.  V.  T.,  .vib.  voc.  *  Ps.  oxviii.  C3. 

*  Comp.  Neh.  ix.  20,  "Thou  gavest  also  thy  good  Spirit  to  instruct  them, 
and  withheldest  not  tliy  manna  from  their  mouth,  and  gavest  them  waters  for 
their  thirst."  Isa.  Ixiii.  10-12,  "  But  they  rebelled  and  vexed  his  Ploly  Spirit; 
therefore  he  turned  to  be  their  enemy,  and  he  fought  against  them.  .  ,  .  Then 
he  remembered  the  days  of  old,  Moses  and  his  people,  sayins:^ :  Where  is  he 
that  put  his  Holy  Spirit  within  him?"  Hag.  ii.  5,  ''According  to  the  word 
that  I  covenanted  with  you  when  ye  came  out  of  Egypt,  so  my  Spirit  reniain- 
eth  among  you ;  fear  ye  not."     Acts  vii.  51,  "  Ye  stiff-necked  and  uncircum- 

13 


194  TASTING   A   GOOD   WORD   OF   GOD  [vi.  4,  5. 

many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  they  are  the  sons  of 
God."  ^  Taking,  then,  the  Apostle's  meaning  to  be,  that  the  per- 
sons described  became  companions  of  a  Holy  Spirit,  and  compar- 
ing the  texts  given  in  the  foot  note,  we  suppose  that  here,  as  at 
iii.  14,  when  he  says:  "we  are  become  companions  of  Christ," 
he  intimates  a  parallel  with  the  experience  of  those  in  the  wilder- 
ness, who  were  also  led  by  the  Spirit,  and  thus  were  his  com- 
panions as  they  were  the  companions  of  Moses  their  human 
leader.  When  he  says  companions  of  a  Holy  Spirit  {without  the 
article)  he  leaves  the  word  Holy  emphatic,  as  laying  stress  on 
what  kind  of  a  spirit  attended  them.^  This  much  enhances  the 
sin  of  "rebelling  against  and  vexing"  that  Spirit. 

The  next  expression  is :  and  having  tasted  a  good  word  of  God 
and  powers  of  a  coming  world.  We  have  no  hesitation,  such  as 
is  expressed  by  others,^  in  understanding  this  expression  to  have 
been  chosen  with  reference  to  the  situation  in  the  wilderness. 
Taken  with  the  foregoing  expression  relating  to  the  leading  of 
the  Spirit,  the  present  expression  displays  a  close  parallel  to  the 
following  words  from  Deut.  viii.  2,  3,  "  And  thou  shalt  remem- 
ber all  the  way  which  the  Lord  thy  God  led  thee  these  forty 
years  in  the  wilderness,  to  humble  thee,  and  to  prove  thee,  to 
know  what  was  in  thine  heart,  whether  thou  wouldst  keep  his 
commandments  or  no.  And  ...  he  fed  thee  with  manna,  .  .  . 
that  he  might  make  thee  know  thatr-  man  doth  not  live  by 
bread  only,  but  by  every  (word)  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord  doth  man  live  (ctti  navri  pTj;j.aTc  rw  Uitopeuonivut 

When  we  find  such  parallelism  of  thought  along  with  such 
identity  of  language,  and  that  with  reference  to  an  Old  Testa- 

cised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  j'our  fathers 
did,  so  do  ye."  Heb.  ix.  8,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  this  signifying  that  the  way 
into  the  holiest  was  not  yet  made  manifest."  Ps.  cxliii.  10,  "  Teach  me  to  do 
thy  will ;  for  thou  art  my  God ;  thy  Spirit  is  good ;  lead  me  into  the  land  of 
uprightness."  Isa.  xlviii.  16,  17,  "  The  Lord  God,  and  his  Spirit,  hath  sent 
me.  ...  I  am  the  Lord  tliy  God  which  leadeth  thee  by  the  way  thou  shouldst 
go."  John  xvi.  13,  "  When  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  shall  guide 
you  into  all  the  truth." 

^  Eom.  viii.  14 ;  comp.  Gal.  v.  18.  "^  So  von  Hof  ^  See  Alford. 


vi.  4,  5.]  AND   POWERS   OF   A   WORLD   TO   COME.  195 

ment  passage  so  familiar  to  Jews  as  was  that  passage  of  Dent, 
viii.,  we  Deed  feel  no  more  hesitation  in  supposing  it  to  be 
intended  than  we  do  when,  in  Christian  discourse,  we  meet  with 
a  fragment  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  or  of  the  Apostle's  Creed.  As 
representing  a  Christian  notion,  havings  tasted  ^  signifies,  as  in 
ver.  4,  the  test  of  actual  experience,  in  reference  to  the  word 
{^T,!i(jt)  of  God.  As  for  the  latter,  the  words  of  Josh.  xxi.  43,^ 
show  how  the  contemporaries  of  Moses  understood  the  expres- 
sion as  he  used  it,  Deut.  viii.  3.     Joshua  said:  oo  dd-smv  d-d 

Ttavrcuv  rwv  /5i^;j.dT0Jv  rmv  xaXwv  wv   iXdXrjffe  xupcog  =  "  there   did    not 

fail  anything  of  the  good  words  that  the  Lord  spoke."  For 
Joshua,  the  nvjuri  nn^  of  God  was  the  promise  of  the  land  of 
Canaan,  And  that  promise  was  the  better  manna  that  sustained 
such  life  as  his  in  the  wilderness ;  and  every  demonstration  of 
the  truth  of  the  promise  before  its  fulfillment  was  tasting  that 
word.  For  Jeremiah  and  Zachariah  "■  the  good  word  of  God  " 
meant  another  thing  suited  to  their  time ;  but  it  was  a  promise! 
also.^  Our  Author  says  :  a  good  word  (without  the  article),  by 
which  he  emphasizes  the  quality  of  what  he  refers  to,  and  also 
adapts  an  expression  drawn  from  the  ancient  situation  to  the 
Christian  situation,  signifying  that  what  he  refers  to,  though  not 
"the  good  word,"  was  a  good  word  of  the  same  kind.  It  is  a 
word  of  promise  he  means.  What  the  promise  relates  to  is  inti- 
mated by  the  following  clause  closely  adjoined  by  rs  :  and  powers 
of  a  world  to  come.  So  adjoined,  and  thus  dependent  upon 
having  tasted,  the  notion  thus  expressed  forms  part  of  the  notion 
of  the  preceding  expression.  And  the  ancient  parallel  lielps  us 
to  understand  the  relation  of  the  two  notions.  The  miracle  of 
the  manna  was  the  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  that  word 
of  promise  that  was  the  real  livelihood  of  those  in  the  wilder- 
ness. By  experiencing  that  and  other  works  of  power  they 
tasted  the  good  word  that  supported  their  hopes;  in  other  words, 
had  the  proof  of  an  actual  experience  to  assure  them  and  make 

*  That  -yevaa/i  is  followed  in  this  instance  by  the  accns.,  instead  of  the  peni- 
tive  as  in  ver.  4,  according:  to  common  nsapje,  has  had  no  better  reason  assigned 
than  the  desire  to  avoid  accumulations  of  genitives. 

'Comp.  Josh,  xxiii.  15.  'Jer.  xxix.  10;  xxxiii.  14;  Zcch.  i.  13. 


196  ■Kapanimztv.  [vi.  6. 

tliem  steadfast  in  obedience.  The  persons  the  Apostle  describes  had 
also  a  good  word  of  God,  whose  truth  and  reliability  were  simil- 
arly demonstrated  by  their  tasting  powers  of  a  world  to  come,  to 
which  that  word  as  a  promise  referred.  By  powers  the  Apostle 
means  miraculous  demonstrations,  such  as  he  refers  to  ii.  4. 
Describing  them  as :  of  a  world  to  come,  he  signifies  that  the  good 
word  refers  to  things  of  a  future  world,  the  meaning  we  have 
already  obtained  from  the  parallelism  involved  in  the  expression 
itself.  By  world  {aim.')  is  meant  the  same  as  ol/Moiiivrj  iiilXousa 
(ii.  5),  but  here  considered  temporally  as  an  age.  "  This  world 
to  come  is  not  only  an  object  of  promise.  Its  marvelous  powers 
are  tasted  even  here.  They  are  a  prelude  and  foretaste  vouch- 
safed already  of  that  future  redemption  which  is  still  in  progress. 
The  world  to  come  has  not  yet  appeared,  but  is  already  present 
as  the  hidden  background  of  the  world  that  now  is,  waiting  for 
its  manifestation,  and  perpetually  breaking  through  the  crust 
that  confines  it."  ^ 

Having  now  sufficiently  described  the  previous  condition  of  the 
persons  referred  to,  the  Apostle  adds  the  adversative :  and  having 
fallen  away,  which  describes  their  present  position.  The  word 
TtapaTzi-Tui  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the  New  Testament.  But 
it  is  used  by  the  LXX.  not  seldom,  especially  to  render  b;?D, 
with  the  meaning  to  "  transgress,  trespass."  ^  It  is  in  Ezekiel  ^  that 
the  LXX.  most  frequently  use  our  verb,  with  its  cognate  noun 
Tzapd-KXioiia.  And  it  is  at  least  remarkable  that  it  is  in  a  context 
that  represents  precisely  the  same  severe  truth  that  the  Apostle  is 
affirming  here.  "  But  when  the  righteous  turneth  aAvay  from  his 
righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity  .  .  .  shall  he  live  ?  All 
his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done  shall  not  be  mentioned  ;  in 
his  trespass  that  he  hath  trespassed  .  .  .  shall  he  die  {h  rS> 

■Kapa-zmiiart  abroo  w  T.apir.zaz   .   .   .   d-::o>'}avsl.Tai).^^  ^      Nor  is  it  tO  be 

overlooked  that  in  the  same  connection  Ezekiel  uses  imagery  that 
resembles  the  comparison  of  our  verses  7,  8.  "  Son  of  man, 
when  the  land  sinneth  against  me  by  trespassing  grieviously 
{y7i  Tj  idv  diidprrj  hoc  ruu  Tzapaizeatlv  -apd-Twtj.a),  then  Will   I    stretch 

'  Del.  ^  Comp.  Grotius. 

'  Ezek.  xiv.  13 ;  xv.  8;  xviii.  24,  26 ;  xx.  27.  *  Ezek.  xviii.  24. 


vi.  6.1  dyaxaivi^etv.  197 

out  mine  hand  upon  it,  and  will  break  the  staff  of  the  bread 
thereof,  etc."  ^  "  As  the  vine  tree  among  the  trees  of  the  forest 
which  I  have  given  to  the  fire  for  fuel,  so  will  I  give  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Jerusalem  .  .  .  They  shall  go  out  from  one  fire  and 
another  fire  shall  devour  them.  .  .  And  I  will  make  the  land 
desolate,  because  they  have  committed  a  trespass  (xm  Suxtuj  rijv 

yr^v  £i9   d(pa>t(TiJ.vv   avV  tuv  napiiTeffov   naparrr wij.art).^^  ^      It   doCS    not 

seem  likely  that  these  coincidences  of  thought  and  expression, 
beside  the  mere  use  of  the  word  Ttapa-KiTzru)^  could  have  escaped 
the  notice  of  an  expositor  like  Grotius,  and  through  him  of 
other's  since.^  But  though  they  have  been  made  no  account  of 
by  others,  we  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  they  influenced 
the  Apostle  in  writing  our  present  context,  and  that  we  may 
refer  to  these  representations  in  Ezekiel  to  settle,  not  only  the 
meaning  of  the  word  Tzapa-i~.,  but  also  the  doctrine  here  set 
forth.  Consequently,  we  may  understand  the  having  fallen  away 
to  mean  a  deflection  from  Christianity  like  that  of  the  Jews 
when,  in  Canaan,  they  turned  to  worship  the  idols  of  the  coun- 
try. This  is  something  more  specific  than  mere  transgression  in 
general.     It  is  in  fact  apostasy.* 

Of  the  persons  so  defined,  the  Apostle  aflirms  :  it  is  impossible 
to  renew  them  again  to  repentance.  He  says  again  {j:dXi^^)  in 
antithesis  to  the  "  once"  (vcr.  4),  because  the  renewing  would  be 
a  deed  that  would  be  a  repetition  of  a  former  deed,  seeing  they 
had  already  once  been  what  that  deed  would  make  them.  By 
renewing  {/i.va/.rwA'^si-?)  is  not  meant  regeneration.^  It  is  not  an 
accident  that  the  Author  uses  (haxaivi'^ev^  and  not  (haxaiyouv.^  The 
former  must  be  viewed  as  a  synonym  of  ^Tzcff-picfsiv  =  "  to  turn 
one,"  as  in  Lam.  v.  21.  The  latter  is  a  word  of  Paul's  making 
to  denote  the  Christian  truth  of  "  the  redemptive  activity  of  God, 
corresponding  to  the  creation  of  man,  which,  by  putting  an  end 
to  his  existing  corrupt  state,  constitutes  a  new  beginning."  ^ 
"  Closely  combined  with  ei"?  psTdvomv,  dvavxuivi^stv  denotes  a 
restoration  out  of  the  present  state  of  the  sinner  into  which  he 
has  fallen  by  his  sin,  in  the  direction  of  a  change  of  mind  that  is 

»  Ezek.  xiv.  1.3.        '^  Ezek.  xv.  6-8.        ^  Comp.  Lindsay.        *  See  Grotius. 
*  Against  Alford,  with  von  Hof.        ®  von  Hof.         '  Cremer,  Lex.,  svh  voc. 


198  avaaraupouvra^  iaurotg.  [yi.  6. 

thereby  achieved.  The  change  of  mind  must  be  return  from  the 
wrong  way,  which  it  is  the  sin  of  the  sinner  to  have  taken,  and 
return  to  the  way  he  left."  ^ 

We  should  note  that  the  Apostle  says :  it  is  impossible  to 
renew  to  repentance,  not  that  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  repent. 
It  is  common  to  discourse  on  tliis  passage  as  if  the  latter  were 
affirmed,  or  at  least  involved  in  what  is  affirmed.  But  nothing 
of  the  kind  is  affirmed.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  the  characters  in 
question  as  the  objects  of  efforts  that  others  might  make  with 
reference  to  their  repentance,  and  as  they  might  be  affected  by 
such  efforts.  And  what  he  says  is  with  special  reference  to  the 
efforts  he  expresses  himself  as  ready  to  make  on  their  behalf, 
ver.  3.  This  distinction  very  seriously  affects  what  the  Apostle 
is  commonly  supposed  to  teach  in  our  passage. 

It  is  impossible  to  effect  this,  says  the  Apostle.  Why  this  is 
so  is  more  particularly  indicated  in  the  following  clause  and  by 
the  comparison  of  vers.  7,  8.  But  primarily  it  appears  in  the 
antithesis  once  (ver.  4)  and  again.  Not  that :  having  been  once 
enlightened  expresses  something  that  was  by  intention  a  once-for- 
all  that  would  not  be  repeated.  But  enlightenment  is  by  its 
nature  something  that  is  once  for  all,  and  thus  excludes  a  re-en- 
lightenment. To  this  must  be  added  the  explanation  that  fol- 
lows :  it  is  impossible,  the  while  ^  they  crucify  to  themselves  the 
Son  of  God  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame.  We  need  not  take  the 
dvd  in  composition  here  as  meaning  "  afresh."  It  means  "  up," 
and  refers  to  the  lifting  up  on  the  cross  by  which  one  is  cruci- 
fied.^ The  rendering:  " afresh "  rather  mars  than  enhances  the 
force  of  what  is  said.  For  the  persons  referred  to  did  not  before 
crucify  Christ,  and  so  their  present  doing  would  not  for  them  be 
doing  the  same  thing  afresh.  And,  though  crucifying  him  who 
had  been  crucified  would  be  doing  it  again,  that  does  not  need  to 
be  stated.*  It  is  iaurmg  that  is  emphatic,  and  the  double  point 
of  what  is  affirmed  is,  that  "they  hang  Him  up  on  the  cross, 
where  for  their  part  they  would  have  him ;"  ^  and  that  it  is  the 
Son  of  God  whom  they  so  crucify ;  by  which  glorious  name  is 

*  von  Hof.  ^  Version  1881,  margin. 

'  Grotius,  von  Hof.  *  Comp.  Davidson.  *  von  Hof. 


vi.  6.]  Ttapaihiyfiari^ovra^.  199 

not  only  indicated  the  greatness  of  the  crime  as  an  outward  fact, 
but  also  that  He  whom  they  crucify  is  known  to  be  such,  for 
they  have  been  enlightened.  Doing  so  they  put  him  to  an  open 
shame ;  "  they  expose  him  to  view  as  one  who  got  his  due  when 
He  was  crucified.  For  by  turning  their  back  on  Him,  they 
declare  Him  to  have  been  deserving  of  that  which  the  Jews  did 
to  Him,  and  repeat  the  act  as  far  as  it  is  now  possible  to 
do  so."  * 

What  is  now  stated  of  the  persons  referred  to  is  not  an  inter- 
pretation of  what  is  the  spirit  and  meaning  of  the  falling  away 
itself  after  having  been  enligtened.^  The  present  participle 
a'^a(T-au[)(>T)v-a<i,  separated  from  -af>aT,z(j6v~aq  (aorist)  by  the  expres- 
sion izdXv^  .  .  .  iierf'vMHa'j,  cannot  be  so  construed.  It  describes 
the  present  doing  of  those  that  have  fallen  away.  It  was  not  a 
past  action,  viz.,  that  they  apostatized  (aorist),  that  makes  the 
impossibility,  but  the  present  action  in  the  situation  to  which 
falling  away  brought  them.  It  is  that  present  doing  that  makes 
the  impossihiliiy  of  renewing  the  doers  to  repentance.^  Enlight- 
ened, as  they  once  were,  and  doing  this  in  their  enlightenment,  it 
is  impossible  to  renew  in  them  those  exjjeriences  that  formerly 
attended  their  enlightenment.  The  doing  itself,  apart  from  its 
great  guilt,  made  it  impossible ;  for  it  is  the  preaching  of  Christ 
crucified  that  effects  repentance,  and  those  that  are  themselves 
crucifying  Him  cannot  experience  that  power  of  the  cross.* 

There  is,  indeed,  a  subjective  condition  in  such  persons  that 
makes  repentance  impossible.  But  in  the  case  here  presented  it 
amounts  to  this :  that  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  be  influenced 
in  opposite  directions  by  the  same  thing  at  the  same  time.  While 
they  are  crucifying  Christ,  the  cross  of  Christ  cannot  crucify  them 
to  the  world  or  dead  works.* 

Delitzsch,  opposing  this  interpretation  as  given  by  von  Hof- 
mann,  objects  :  "  that  it  amounts  to  the  identical  proposition, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  renew  to  repentance  persons  that  have 

^  Grotius,  von  Ilof.  ^  Against  Alford,  etc 

*  So  Harless  in  his :  Cliristliche  Ethik,  4te  Aufl.,  p.  130  sq. ;  von  Hof. ;  Fai^ 
rar,  ch.  xviii.  ?  3,  Wordsworth. 

*Comp.  X.  26.  SQal.  vi.  14. 


200  A    LAND    THAT    IS    BLESSED.  [vi.  7,  8. 

once  fallen  away,  so  long  as  they  do  not  repent."  But  this  is 
gratuitous  mystification.  It  would  have  some  color  if  the 
affirmation  were:  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  repent.  But  as 
the  present  representation  relates  to  what  others  may  do  for  their 
repentance,  it  has  none.  "  Ephraim  is  joined  to  idols  ;  let  him 
alone"  (Hos.  iv.  17);  may  that  too  be  resolved  into  the  identi- 
cal proposition?  We  are,  moreover,  to  bear  in  mind,  that 
repentance  here  is  a  particular  notion,  defined  by  the  representa- 
tions of  vers,  4,  5.  It  is  renewal  to  the  condition  there  described, 
and  from  which  the  persons  have  fallen  away.  That  is  impos- 
sible while  they  are  virtually  crucifying  Christ. 

But,  moreover,  the  guilt  of  their  doing  and  the  wilful  per- 
versity of  wickedness  it  reveals  is  a  reason  for  the  impossibility  of 
effecting  the  repentance  of  persons  referred  to.^  For  the  Apostle 
has  said :  "  if  God  permit "  (ver.  3),  and  it  is  more  important, 
as  it  is  ultimately  all-determining,  how  God  is  affected  by  what  the 
persons  described  do,  than  how  they  are  subjectively  affected. 
And  the  Apostle  proceeds  (vers.  7,  8)  to  represent  the  part  of 
God  in  the  situation  described.  This  he  does  by  a  simile  that  is 
almost  a  parable.^ 

Ver.  7.  For  land  which  hath  drunk  the  rain  which  cometh  oft 
upon  it,  and  bringeth  forth  herbs  meet  for  those  for  whose  sake  it 
is  also  tilled,  receiveth  blessing  from  God ;  8.  but  bearing  thorns 
and  thistles  it  is  worthless  and  nigh  unto  a  curse,  whose  end  is  for 
burning. 

Let  it  be  noted  that  what  is  meant  to  be  expressed  in  the  first 
part  of  this  parable  is,  that  the  land  brings  forth  to  those  for 
whose  sake  it  is  tilled,  i.  e.,  the  owners,  and  the  xai  ystupYeJrai  calls 
attention  to  their  labor,  and  what  it  is  for,  as  added  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  rain,  and  thus  as  deserving  this  return.  On  the 
other  hand,  that  God  blesses  the  land  denotes  the  interest  He  has  in 
it,  looking  for  it  to  be  what  His  rains  were  intended  to  make  it. 

What  answers  to  these  traits  of  the  parable  is :  those  that 
receive  the  gospel :  God  that  sends  it :  and  the  teachers  who 
impart  it,  such  as  e.g.,  the  Apostle  who  writes.^     In  the  second 

*  Against  von  Hof.,  with  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford. 

*  Comp.  Davidson.  ^  So  Alford. 


vi.  7,  8.]  A   LAND   NIGH   UNTO   A   CURSE.  201 

part  of  the  parable  the  land  is  supposed  to  have  the  same  raiu 
and  labor  given  to  it  as  in  the  first.  And  we  must  understand 
God  to  be  the  one  who  shall  say  whether  the  land  is  to  be  cursed 
or  not.^  For  the  one  that  blesses  must  be  also  the  one  that 
curses.  The  denial  of  His  blessing  would  be  a  curse.  Besides, 
it  is  not  an  estate  that  is  meant,  but  a  widespread  territory  or 
country,  as  is  suggested  by  the  traits  of  rain  and  many  {hsc^uT?) 
inhabitants  or  owners,  and  God  blessing  it.  Thus,  it  cannot  be 
the  owners  that  devote  the  land  to  burning,  as  might  be  in  the 
case  of  a  single  estate.  Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  Author's 
thought  than  the  notion  of  burning  over  ground  to  improve  its 
fertility.^ 

Paraphrasing,  then,  the  parable  in  the  terms  of  the  realities  it 
is  meant  to  illustrate,  it  expresses  that  those  who  enjoy  such 
advantages  as  the  persons  described,  vers.  4,  5,  and  who  yield  the 
proper  fruit  to  such  as  the  Apostle,  that  are  sent  to  teach  them, 
shall  receive  God's  blessing.  But  those  who,  with  the  same 
advantages,  yield,  not  only  no  good  fruit,  but  the  very  opposite,  viz., 
of  apostasy :  are  mgh.  unto  a  curse,  whose  end  is  for  burning. 
With  the  majority  of  expositors,  we  understand  the  whose  (fii) 
to  refer  to  the  land.  As  applied  to  the  persons  whose  case  is 
illustrated,  the  burning  means  a  destruction,  fearful  and  com- 
plete, as  burning.'^  It  is  commonly  thought  *  that  the  Apostle's 
language  in  this  parable  is  prompted  by  a  reminiscence  of  Deut. 
xxix.  22,  23.  But  in  view  of  the  evidences  adduced  above 
under  ver.  6,  there  is  more  reason  to  think  he  was  influenced  by 
the  passages  in  Ezekiel  there  cited.  Or,  perhaps,  we  should 
recognize  a  reminiscence  of  both  Old  Testament  passages. 

The  Apostle  says  of  the  land  of  thorns,  that  it  is  nigh  unto  a 
curse,  and  we  may  suppose  that  the  additional  clause  means  that 
if  actually  cursed  it  will  be  devoted  to  burning.  But  being 
nigh  unto  a  curse  denotes  that  the  judgment  impends.^  It  also 
denotes,  however,  that  it  has  not  yet  fallen,  and  thus  far  it  is  not 
certain  that  burning  is  the  end  of  that  land,  or,  properly,  that 
destruction  is  the  end  of  the  persons  referred  to.     The  judgment 

'  Against  von  ITof.  '  Against  Stuart.  •"*  Comp.  x.  27. 

*  See  in  Alford.  °  Comp.  kyyvQ  dfavia/iov,  viii.  13. 


202  DOCTRixE  OF  VI.  3-8.  [vi.  7,  8. 

is  near ;  ^  It  clepeuds  upon  the  time ;  it  depends  upon  whether 
God  will  permit  or  not  permit  those  concerned  to  escape.  In 
this  contingency  the  Apostle  contemplates  only  those  that  by 
profession  were  Christians.  For  Jewish  opposers  of  the  prom- 
ised Christ  there  was  no  contingency.  Regarding  the  fact  of  an 
"  apostasy  from  the  living  God "  ^  there  was  no  contingency. 
But,  as  w^e  have  seen  at  iii.  13,  contingency  of  being  taken  or 
not  taken  in  the  judgment  that  would  overtake  the  apostasy  did 
exist  for  those  the  Apostle  refers  to.  For  those,  too,  that  had 
really  apostatized  there  may  be  still  a  possibility  of  return.  But 
it  hangs  on  this  :  "  if  God  permit "  (ver.  3). 

We  may  sum  up  the  doctrine  taught  in  our  passage  ver.  3-8, 
thus : 

Those  enlightened  as  described  vers.  4,  5,  may  apostatize.  Yet, 
as  such,  they  may  be  the  subject  of  efforts  to  renew  them  to 
repentance.  Thus  they  must  be  regarded  as  persons  that  may 
repent. 

The  condition  of  apostates  may  be  such  that  it  is  impossible  to 
renew  them  to  repentance ;  not  in  itself  as  such  apostasy,  but 
while  in  that  condition  the  apostate  does  what  is  virtually  cruci- 
fying the  Son  of  God,  and  putting  Him  to  an  open  shame.  The 
impossibility  is  primarily  because  they  are  rejecting  the  very 
thing  that  effects  repentance,  viz.,  the  Cross  of  Christ. 

But  chiefly,  the  renewing  to  repentance  is  a  matter  that  is  ulti- 
mately subject  to  God's  will.  And  the  times  He  has  set  for 
judgment  will  show  whether  or  not  He  will  permit  it.  Let 
God's  destroying  judgment  come  while  apostates  are  doing  what 
now  makes  their  renewal  to  repentance  impossible,  then  what  is 
now  impossible  becomes  forever  impossible. 

"We  see  in  this  only  doctrine  that  is  common  to  all  the  inspired 
writers  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament.  We  find  ^ 
no  expression  here  to  the  effect  that  the  sinners  described  have 
reached  a  state  that  is  essentially  reprobate,  and  inveterate,  and 
hopeless  of  repentance,  independent  of  circumstance  or  extended 
time.*  Such  a  situation  might  justly  be  identified  with  the 
unpardonable  sin,   as  Delitzsch  does  identify  it.      But  such  a 

1  Comp.  V.  12 ;  X.  25.         Mii.  12.        MVith  Davidson.        *  Against  Del. 


vi.  7,  8.]  DOCTRINE  OF  VI.  3-8.  203 

situation  no  more  admits  of  being  plied  with  teaching,  where  it 
is  known,  than  of  being  the  subject  of  prayer.^  We  would  not, 
therefore,  find  the  Apostle  saying  he  would  under  any  circum- 
stance press  persons  of  that  condition  with  teaching,  as  he  does 
propose  (ver.  3)  to  do,  if  God  permit,  with  the  persons  that  are 
for  the  present  in  the  condition  he  represents.  Such  a  reprobate 
condition,  as  many  suppose  to  be  described  in  our  passage,  would 
be  one  concerning  which  God  has  made  known  His  will,  viz., 
that  there  shall  be  no  forgiveness  for  it.  If,  then,  the  Apostle 
meant  to  describe  such  a  state  of  sin,  he  would  not  say  :  "  if  God 
permit,"  seeing  it  would  be  a  case  wherein  God's  will  was  clearly 
revealed  that  he  would  not  permit.  Our  passage,  therefore,  does 
not  describe  :  "  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost "  (Matt.  xii. 
31,  32). 

It  obviates  all  mystification  here,  if  we  hold  fast  to  the  Apostle's 
aim  in  writing.  He  presents  the  gospel  as  salvation  from  the  word 
spoken  by  angels,  and  from  its  attendant  punishment  of  trans- 
gression in  which  all  were  in  peril  of  being  involved  (ii.  3-4).  The 
condition  of  enlightenment  represented  in  vers.  4,  5,  is  intelligence 
of  that  salvation,  with  experience  that  demonstrates  the  truth  of  it. 
The  effect  of  the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  that  salvation  is  to 
forsake  trust  in  dead  works.  The  renewal  to  repentance  is  rein- 
statement in  that  situation  of  enlightenment  with  its  attendant 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  such  salvation.  Repentance  in  that 
form  was  impossible  for  those  that  were  virtually  crucifying 
Cltrist.  Let  the  same  persons  be  brought  to  look  on  Christ  as 
the  Son  of  God  speaking  God's  word  of  salvation  to  them ;  that 
will  not  be  renewal  to  repentance  in  the  sense  of  our  passage ; 
but  it  will  present  the  possibility  of  it.  From  that  they  may  be 
brought  to  see  that  in  Christ's  work  is  their  salvation,  and  not  in 
the  practices  of  Judaism.  That  would  be  repentance  from  dead 
works. 

Our  passage  represents  the  possibility  of  such  as  are  describeil 
in  vers.  4,  5,  falling  away  and  being  finally  lost.  The  much 
debated  question  is :  do  vers.  4,  5,  describe  regenerate  Christians  f 
Many  hold  that  they  do,  and  some  ^  think  this  so  obvious,  that 

1 1  John  V.  16.  ^  e.  g.,  Del.,  Alford. 


204  DOCTRINE  OF  VI.  3-8.  [vi.  7,  8. 

they  regard  those  that  affirm  the  contrary  as  past  reasoning  with. 
For  the  most  part  expositors  have  taken  that  view  or  the  oppo- 
site, according  to  their  dogmatic  position. 

In  answering  this  question,  we  may  say,  first  of  all,  that  we 
see  that  the  Apostle  identifies  the  Christian  situation  that  he 
describes  with  that  of  those  in  the  wilderness,  as  he  does  in  the 
representations  of  iii.  7-19.  And  further,  he  seems  to  identify 
it  with  the  situation  described  in  Ezek.  xviii.  24.  Yet  whether 
he  does  the  latter  or  not,  we  are  justified  in  so  identifying  it.  In 
the  latter  case,  the  righteousness,  which,  if  persevered  in,  would 
have  been  the  righteous  man's  salvation,  is  made  no  account  of 
if  he  turn  from  his  righteousness.  He  shall  perish.  In  the 
case  in  the  wilderness,  the  subjects  of  divine  promises  and  of 
miraculous  aid,  who  had  also  committed  themselves  to  divine 
guidance  and  rejoiced  in  divine  favor,  actually  fell  away  and 
were  destroyed.  Thus  we  see  that  our  passage  presents  nothing 
unique.  And  it  evidently  pretends  to  nothing  of  the  kind.  It 
only  represents  the  dealings  of  providence  in  the  way  that  runs 
all  through  the  sacred  writings.  The  problems  presented  Jiere 
are  therefore  not  peculiar.  But,  in  the  second  place,  "Ave  may 
answer  the  above  question  by  pointing  to  the  Apostle's  own 
decision  of  it,  which  is  involved  in  what  he  pointedly  affirms  of 
those  who  represented  this  matter  in  the  wilderness.  He  says  of 
them :  "  the  word  of  the  report  did  not  profit  those  not  being 
mingled  by  faith  witli  those  that  heard,"  (iv.  2.)  Whatever  dis- 
agreement there  may  be  in  explaining  this  sentence  as  a  whole, 
there  is  no  disagreement  in  this,  that  it  affirms  that  it  was  want  of 
faith  that  made  the  word  of  promise  unprofitable  to  those  referred 
to.  Because  they  were  without  faith  they  sinned,  and  provoked, 
and  embittered,  and  were  disobedient,  and  perished.  And  this 
want  of  faith  is  affirmed  of  them  with  relation  to  their  situation 
of  highest  privilege,  and  when  their  conduct  was  such  that,  had 
they  persevered  in  it,  they  would  have  inherited  what  was 
promised.  It  affirms,  then,  that  they  might  have  all  that,  and 
be  all  that,  and  yet  be  without  faith.  And  our  Author  himself 
says  :  "  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  be  well-pleasing  unto 
God,  (xi.  5.)     We  conclude  then  that  they  were  not  regenerate. 


vi.  9.]  DOCTRINE   OF   YI.  3-8  205 

We  conclude,  also,  that  neither  does  the  Author  mean  that  the 
privileged  condition  he  describes  vers.  4,  5,  and  identifies  with 
the  situation  in  the  wilderness,  should  represent  a  regenerate  state. 
In  fact,  the  present  inquiry  is  out  of  place  with  regard  to  repre- 
sentations in  the  present  epistle.  For  the  point  of  view  from 
which  it  is  written  is,  that  the  the  readers  are  in  danger.  And 
the  proof  of  being  truly  Christian,  and  so  really  saved,  that  the 
Author  demands  for  the  situation,  is  expressed  thus  :  "  We  are 
companions  of  Christ  if  we  hold  fast  the  beginning  of  our  con- 
fidence firm  to  the  end,"  (iii.  14 ;  comp,  iii.  6.)  And  the  same  con- 
tinues as  the  only  criterion  that  the  Author  urges  to  the  last,  with 
not  a  little  reiteration.  We  meet  it  again  in  the  next  breath,  vers.  1 1 , 
12.  It  receives  an  expression  fitted  to  throw  light  on  the  above  in- 
quiry at  X.  35-39,  especially  in  the  words :  "  But  we  are  not  of  them 
that  shrink  back  unto  perdition  ;  but  of  them  that  have  faith  unto 
the  saving  of  the  soul."  This  is  a  perfectly  explicit  denial  that 
those  that  are  lost  ever  had  evangelical  faith.  It  is  the  Apostle 
that  makes  it.  It  must  determine  his  meaning  in  our  passage, 
and  is  conclusive,  that  by  the  terms  of  vers.  4.  5,  he  does  not 
mean  to  describe  those  "  that  have  faith  vmto  t}\e  saving  of  the 
soul.*"  Whether  they  have  that  faith  or  not,  in  addition  to  what 
they  are  there  described  to  have  experienced,  can  appear  only  in 
the  event,  according  as  they  hold  fast  as  they  have  begun  (iii.  14), 
or  cast  away  their  boldness  (x.  35).  Our  epistle  does  not  repre- 
sent the  doctrine  of  regeneration,  and  therefore  has  no  expres- 
sion of  the  relation  of  faith  and  regeneration.^  This,  of  course, 
must  not  be  taken  advantage  of  one  way  or  other.  But  it  is 
taking  no  advantage  of  this  silence  to  draw  from  the  teaching 
of  the  New  Testament  scriptures  that  does  define  the  relation  of 
faith  and  regeneration.  That  teaching  is  positive  enough,  that 
when  there  is  no  faith  that  is  unto  salvation  there  has  been  no 
regeneration.^ 

The  Apostle  now  turns  to  his  readers,  and  expressly  intimates 
that  in  them  he  has  in  mind  another  sort  of  persons  than  those 
referred  to  vers.  3-8. 

Ver.  9.  But  we  are  persuaded  concerning^  you,  beloved,  the 

^  Comp.  Riehm,  p.  710.  ^  Comp.  below,  on  ver.  10. 


206  THE    BETTER   THINGS    OF   SALVATION.  [vi.  10. 

better  things,  and  that  accompany  salvation,  though  we  thus 
speak. 

The  Apostle  does  not  elsewhere  in  our  epistle  address  his  read- 
ers by  the  term  beloved.  This  makes  the  present  use  of  the 
designation  the  more  remarkable.  It  is  prompted,  we  may  sup- 
pose, by  the  seriousness  of  the  foregoing  representations.  He 
turns  from  the  repulsive  picture  he  has  been  constrained  to  por- 
tray, and  relieves  his  feelings  and  those  of  his  readers  by  this 
endearing  term.  By  this,  and  by  what  he  expressly  affirms  of 
those  here  addressed  in  the  second  person,  it  is  evident  that  they 
are  distinguished  from  those  just  described  in  the  third  person. 
Of  those  now  addressed,  he  says,  he  is  persuaded  the  better  things 
(rd  xp£t(T(Toi'a),  meaning  that  he  has  a  strong  conviction  that  the 
better  things  appertain  to  them.  We  translate :  the  better 
things,  because  of  the  article  which  points  more  than  a  mere 
comparison  with  the  evil  things  just,  described.  The  Apostle 
does  not  mean  merely  something  better  than  the  case  of  the  per- 
sons described,  vers.  4—8,  but  something  definite  that  is  the 
special  antithesis  of  that,  and  thus,  in  an  exclusive  way,  better. 
We  have  noted  at  i.  4  how  the  word  better  touches  a  key  note  of 
this  epistle,  and  for  the  reasons  given  there,  think  that  here  also 
the  expression  :  the  better  things,  especially  as  emphasized  by 
the  article,  refers  to  those  important  things  wherein  the  betterness 
of  the  Christian  revelation  appears  in  comparison  with  the  Old 
Testament  covenant  ministered  by  angels.  It  confirms  this  view 
when  the  better  things  are  further  defined  as  the  things  that  accom- 
pany salvation.  For  we  have  seen,  at  ii.  3,  that  salvation  is  con- 
templated by  the  Author  especially  in  the  light  of  deliverance 
from  the  consequences  of  the  word  spoken  by  angels,  and  even 
from  subjection  to  that  word  itself.  These  better  things  are  the 
particular  antithesis  of  the  bad  things  represented  vers.  3-8  con- 
cerning those  whose  apostasy  was  precisely  a  return  to  dead 
works.     The  Apostle  gives  us  the  ground  of  the  conviction  : 

Ver.  10.  For  God  is  not  unjust  to  forget  your  work  and  the  love 
which  ye  showed  toward  his  name,  in  that  ye  ministered  to  the 
saints  and  still  minister. 

By  this  the  Apostle  expresses  that  his  conviction  regarding 


vi.  10.]  GOD    IS   NOT   UNJUST.  207 

his  readers  is  founded  on  what  he  believes  must  be  the  attitude 
of  God  toward  them.  In  this,  his  sentiment  is  the  correlative 
of  what  he  has  shown  it  to  be  regarding  the  opposite  sort  of  per- 
sons, of  whom  and  ^^■hose  case  he  judged  in  tlie  liglit  of  what 
God  miglit  permit  (ver.  3).  In  this  case  he  bases  his  inference 
on  the  justice  of  God  ;  for  God  is  not  unjust,  he  says,  intimating 
that  what  is  expressed  in  the  following  words  would  be  unjust. 
And  obviously,  underlying  the  representations  of  vers.  4—8, 
related  as  they  are  to  the  expression  "  if  God  permit  "  (ver.  3), 
there  is  a  similar  inference  from  the  justice  of  God.  In  both  the 
severity  and  the  goodness  thus  inferred  from  the  justice  of  God, 
the  Apostle  furnishes  us  an  impressive  example  of  how  we  ought 
to  do  the  same  with  God's  justice. 

This  conviction  (viz.,  that  the  "  better  things  and  that  accom- 
pany salvation  "  are  for  his  readers)  being  founded  on  God  and 
His  attitude  toward  them,  shows  that  what  the  Apostle  intends 
by  :  "  the  better  things  "  cannot,  by  any  means,  be  something  sub- 
jective in  the  hearers  themselves.^  They  are  what  may  be  ex- 
pected from  the  justice  of  God,  and  therefore  better  things  of  His 
dispensation.  Better  things,  as  regards  conduct,  would  not  be  a 
matter  of  conviction  to  express  by  T:e-si(7iJ.ef^a,  especially  in  the  same 
breath  that  refers  to  such  conduct  as  a  matter  of  observation  and 
well  known.  Such  reference  the  Apostle  makes,  and  thus  expresses 
the  second  premise  of  his  conclusion.  The  readers  had  ministered 
to  the  saints  and  still  ministered.  It  is  impossible  to  determine 
geographically  who  the  saints  were  that  are  here  referred  to,  and 
equally  impossible  to  say  precisely  what  was  the  ministry.  The 
similar  reference  x.  32-34  represents  a  situation  and  experience 
that  were  common  to  many  times  and  places  in  the  first  age  of 
the  church.  Our  verse,  therefore,  throws  no  light  on  the  ques- 
tion :  to  whom  was  the  epistle  addressed?^  We  may  only 
confidently  infer,  that  these  ministrations  were  to  those  suffering 
loss  and  persecution  for  Christ's  sake.  Such  as  the  ministry 
was,  the  Apostle  declares  that  it  was  work  and  love  showed  to 
the  name  of  God.  In  that  quality  it  warranted  an  inference  from 
the  justice  of  God.  God  would  not  forg-et  this.  It  would  be 
'  Against  Liin.,  Alford,  etc.  '  Sec  Del. 


208  FULL   ASSUEAJS^CE   OF   THE    HOPE.  [vi.  11. 

such  forgetting,  did  God  not  extend  to  them  "  the  better  things 
and  that  pertain  to  salvation  "  :  such  is  the  direct  implication  of 
the  Apostle's  words.  And  this  that  he  expresses  is  virtually 
the  antithesis  of  the :  "  if  God  permit "  of  ver.  3,  and  is  the 
Author's  warrant  that  God  does  permit  what  he  proposes  for  his 
readers  ver.  1.  Moreover,  we  may  reflect,  that  the  expression 
before  us,  vers.  9,  10,  plainly  intimates,  and  very  nearly  expresses, 
the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  in  the  same  form 
as  the  Apostle  does  in  Phil.  i.  6,  7.  "  Being  confident  (Tze-oo'/u)^) 
of  this  very  thing,  that  He  who  began  a  good  work  in  you  will 
perfect  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ ;  even  as  it  ig  right 
(Sixaio'J)  for  me  to  be  thus  minded  on  behalf  of  you  all."  And 
the  resemblance  would  be  still  closer  were  we  to  read  on : 
"  Because  [ye  have  me  in  your  heart],  ^  inasmuch  as,  both  in  my 
bonds  and  in  the  defence  of  the  gospel,  ye  are  all  partakers  with 
me  of  grace." 

The  Apostle's  confidence  concerning  his  readers  is  not  based 
on  the  present  evidences  of  their  lives,  as  v.  11-14  shows.  But 
spite  of  that  declension,  and  on  the  ground  of  convincing  evidences 
that  appeared  when  they  were  first  enlightened  (x.  32),  he  is 
confident  that  God  will  dispense  to  them  the  things  that  belong 
to  salvation.  But  His  expression  of  confidence  stops  short  of 
the  expression  Phil.  i.  6,  7,  in  that  it  does  not  anticipate  the 
"■  perfecting."  But  this  may  be  only  because  the  situation,  so 
different  from  that  of  the  Philippians,  calls  for  earnest  admoni- 
tion to  persevere,  and  thus  excludes  that  expression  as  unbefitting 
the  present  task.  With  the  confidence,  as  far  as  expressed,  the 
present  duty  is  to  incite  the  readers  to  diligence  and  patience  in 
faith  to  the  end.     With  this  thought  the  Apostle  proceeds : 

Ver.  11.  But  we  desire  that  each  one  of  you  may  show  the  same 
diligence  with  regard  to  the  full  assurance  of  the  hope  until  the 
end. 

The  Apostle  would  have  them  show  the  same  diligence  in 
another  matter  that  they  had  shown  and  were  showing  in  minis- 
tering to  the  saints.     And  the  discipline  he  proposes  for  their 
"  pressing  on   to   full-groMi:h "    itself  requires   that    diligence. 
*  Kosenm,  Conyebeare,  Revision  1881,  margin. 


vi.  12.]  IMITATORS   OF    FAITH    AND    HOPE.  209 

This  reference  to  their  first  diligence  repeats  in  anotlier  form  tlie 
notion:  "holding  fast  the  beginning  of  our  boldness  and  the 
glorying  of  our  hope,  firm  until  the  end."  (iii.  6-14.)  The 
Apostle's  care  extends  to  each  one,  great  and  small,  and  over- 
looks no  one/  It  is  interesting  to  notice  how,  in  2  Cor.  viii.  6, 
7  the  present  exhortation  appears  in  a  reversed  order,  and  "  the 
abounding  in  faith  and  utterance  and  knowledge  and  in  all  ear- 
nestness "  (jzurrrj  (7-ooSfj)  is  made  the  measure  of  that  grace  the 
Apostle  would  have  the  Corinthian  church  show  in  liberally 
ministering  to  the  saints. 

The  matter  in  reference  to  which  the  Apostle  would  have  his 
readers  show  this  diligence  is  :  the  full  assurance  of  the  hope  until 
the  end.  The  hope  means  the  same  that  is  meant  iii.  G,  m  Inch 
definiteness  is  expressed  by  the  article  (the  article  having  here 
the  force  of  the  personal  pronoun)  ^  and  may  be  rendered  :  your 
hope.^  It  means  the  substance  hoped  for,  and  not  the  subjective 
act  of  hoping.  The  full  assurance  or  entire  certainty  regarding 
that  matter  of  hope  is  the  subjective  thing  to  which  their  dili- 
gence should  be  directed.  They  ought  to  reach  that  certainty 
and  abide  in  it  until  the  end,  by  which,  as  at  iii.  6,  14,  is  meant, 
till  the  goal  is  reached  where  there  is  no  longer  need  for  such 
exercise,  i.  e.,  when  the  thing  hoped  for  becomes  a  thing  seen. 

The  notion  so  expressed  is  doubly  amplified,  first  negatively, 
then  positively. 

Ver.  12.  In  order  that  ye  become  not  dull,  but  imitators  of 
them  who  by  faith  and  endurance  inherit  the  promises. 

The  Apostle  says,  v.  11,  that  they  have  got  dull  of  hearing  ; 
not  meaning  there,  however,  that  their  dullness  was  only  in 
respect  of  hearing,  but  that,  being  dull,  they  were  so  of  hearing 
as  well  as  in  other  respects.  Speaking  now  again  of  their  becom- 
ing dull,  is  no  discrepancy  with  that,  that  calls  on  us  to  suppose 
he  means  here  dullness  in  another  particular,  e.  g.,  in  respect  to 
holding  fast  to  the  Christian  hope,  or  in  Christian  practice.^ 
Dullness,  sluggishness,  is  something  that  goes  on,  and  its  exhi- 
bition at  one  date  and  another  is  treated  as  genetic,  just  as  is 

1  Chrys.  ^  Kiilmer,  Gram.  TI.  482. 

»  So  Alford.  ••  Against  Lun.,  A  Iford. 

14 


210  xA-qpuvuiJ.sr^.  [vi.   12. 

done  also  with  the  reverse  of  it,  viz.,  the  imitation  of  the  good. 
Such  imitators  the  Apostle  would  have  his  readers  become. 

The  thing  to  be  imitated  is  plain  :  viz.,  faith  and  endurance, 
both  which  notions,  as  thus  correlated,  call  for  amplification,  or 
rather  illustrations.  But  as  the  Apostle  gives  this  in  chap.  xi. 
we  need  not  anticipate  the  consideration  of  them  here.  The  per- 
sons appealed  to  as  examples  of  the  faith  and  patience  are,  as  a 
fact  of  exposition,  not  so  easily  identified.  Those  inheriting  the 
promises  (roiv  ■Arjpovoii.Dijv-ujv  ra?  i-ay/s^ta?)  they  are  called.  The 
present  participle  forbids  our  supposing  ^  that  the  Patriarchs  are 
meant.  On  the  other  hand,  the  mention  of  Abraham  (ver.  13), 
which  is  obviously  an  appeal  to  one  example  of  the  persons  to 
be  imitated,^  forbids  our  supposing  ^  that  only  the  contemporaries 
of  the  Apostle  and  his  readers  are  meant.  We  must  then  under- 
stand the  expression  in  a  perfectly  general  way,*  without  respect 
to  time,  of  those  that  so  inherit  promises. 

But  for  perfect  clearness,  two  other  matters  require  definition  : 
(a)  what  is  meant  by  the  promises,  in  the  plural ;  (6)  and  what 
is  meant  by  inheriting  the  promises.  By  defining  the  latter  the 
former  will  become  plain. 

The  need  of  defining  (6)  what  the  Author  means  by  inheriting 
the  promises,  arises  from  his  using  other  phrases  which,  with  our 
present  one,  are  confounded  by  readers  as  if  they  were  synonymous, 
yet  which,  as  they  are  used,  have  the  appearance  of  contradictions.^ 
Let  us  notice,  then,  that  (under  the  verbal  form  or  substantively, 
x/.r]povofie'c>,^  ffuvxkyjpovo/j.eiv,''  xXrjp<)votj.ta,y'  the  Author  expresses  a 
relation  that  is  actual,  and,  so  far  as  it  involves  possession,  is 
actual  possession  of  something  received.  In  this  sense  Abraham 
is  said  to  receive  a  promise,  and  so  to  be  one  inheriting  a  pro- 
mise.* In  the  same  sense  this  has  been^"  and  now  again  is,  in 
our  verse,  predicated  of  many  in  a  general  way,  including  con- 
temporaries of  the  Apostle.  But  again,  the  Author  says  of  the 
Patriarchs  and  of  all  the  other  examples  of  faith,  preceding  the 
revelation  of  Christ,  whom  he  appeals  to  in  chap.  xi.  that  they 

^  As  De  Wette.  *  Against  von  Hof.  '  As  von  Ilof. 

*  As  Liin.,  Alford,  etc.  *  See  in  Bleek  the  meanings  discussed. 

6i.  14;  vi.,  12;  xu.  17.       '  xi.  9.       ^  ^i.  17  ;  xi.  7.       ^xi.  19.       i»i.  14. 


vi.  12.1  iTziTuy/^avtiv.  xo;xi!^£<T>^ac.  211 

"  did  not  receive  "  [xoiu^u)  in  the  Mid.)^  the  promises  which  they 
are  said  to  have  inherited.  And  also  of  his  readers  he  mentions 
"  the  promise  "  as  something  yet  to  be  received  by  them.^  By 
(xo/uUffi'Mc),  "  receiving,"  then,  the  Author  means  that  possession 
that  has  and  bears  off  in  actual  enjoyment  the  substance  of  what 
is  hoped  for.  That  receiving,  however,  has  not  come  to  those 
that  are  as  yet  only  heirs  of  the  promises.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Author  says  of  Abraham  :  "  he  obtained  the  promise,"  ver. 
15.  And  similarly  he  affirms,  in  general,  of  those  examples  of 
faith  appealed  to  in  chap,  xi.,  that  "  they  obtained  promises."  ^ 
By  this  is  meant  that,  personally  and  directly,  God  made  a  pro- 
mise to  them,  which  was  then  their  promise.  These  different 
notions,  variously  expressed,  must,  therefore,  be  kept  quite  dis- 
tinct, and  thereby  we  will  avoid  much  confusion. 

Chief  among  the  notions  thus  distinguished  is  that  expressed 
by  our  phrase,  inheriting  the  promises.  By  this  is  denoted  a 
relation  of  right  and  title  to  the  things  promised,  without  actual 
possession  and  enjoyment.*  Such  is  the  relation  to  the  promises 
of  those  that  must  show  faith  and  endurance  with  reference  to 
them. 

In  regard  to  («,)  {i.e.,  the  first  of  the  inquiries  named  above) 
the  promises,  in  the  plural,  w^e  are  not  to  sujipose  that  the 
Author  means  by  them  the  same  thing  that  he  means  by  "  the 
promise"^  in  the  singular.  We  have  noticed  that  in  xi.  33,  he 
mentions  the  examples  of  faith  as  having  "  obtained  promises," 
just  as,  ver.  15,  he  says  Abraham  obtained  "the  promise."  As  he 
refers  to  those  inheriting^  the  promises  in  a  general  way,  so  he 
includes  the  various  promises  obtained  as  the  object  of  their 
enduring  faith.  Abraham  obtained  "  a  promise ;"  Moses  another, 
viz.,  of  entering  God's  rest;  David  another;^  and  Christians  have 
many  exceeding  great  and  precious  promises.^  To  the  promises 
so  given,  those  that  obtain  them  stand  related  as  heirs,  having  a 
right  and  title  to  them,  which  they  show  by  faith  and  endurance. 

The  Apostle  adduces  Abraham  as  an  example  of  those  inher- 
iting the  promises. 

1  xi.  13,  39.  2  x_  3g.  3  xj.  33.  4  q^^^^  q^i  j^  1.2. 

'  Ver.  17 ;  x.  36.  «  2  Sam.  vii.  4  sqq.  '  2  Pet.  i.  4. 


212  GOD  SWEARS  TO  ABRAHAM.  [vi.  13-15. 

Ver.  13.  For  God  having  made  promise  to  Abraham,  since 
He  could  swear  by  none  greater,  He  sware  by  Himself,  14.  saying : 
Surely,  blessing  I  wiU  bless  thee,  and  multiplying  I  will  multiply 
thee.  15.  And  thus  having  patiently  endured,  he  obtained  the 
promise. 

The  relation  of  the  participle  aorist  kTrayyedd/ievog  and  the  fol- 
lowing wfiotrev  expresses  that,  in  regard  to  time,  the  promising 
antedated  the  swearing ;  ^  just  as  in  the  precisely  similar  con- 
struction of  ver.  15,  the  "patient  endurance"  antedated  the 
"  obtaining  the  promise. "  The  reference  is  to  the  promises,  i.  e., 
the  same  for  substance  repeated,  that  God  had  already  imparted 
to  Abraham,  Gen  xii.  7;  xvii.  5,  6;  xviii.  18,  and  which 
God  then,  Gen.  xxii.  16-18,  repeated  to  him  and  confirmed  by 
an  oath.^  From  first  to  last  of  these  transactions  embraced  a 
considerable  period.  Since  Isaac's  birth,  for  instance,  twenty- 
five  years  had  elapsed^  before  the  occasion  when  God  confirmed 
the  foregoing  promise  by  His  oath.  It  is  to  Abraham's  conduct 
during  this  period  that  the  Apostle  appeals  as  an  example  of 
faith  and  patience.  It  was  precisely  the  critical  and  determining 
period  of  his  life,  from  which  his  life  received  its  character  of 
faith,  and  in  which  he  won  the  title  of  "  father  of  all  them  that 
believe."*  Comprehending  all  this,  the  Apostle  .says:  and  thus, 
having  patiently  endured,  he  obtained  the  promise.  The :  and 
thus  (x.  ouTw?)  belongs  to :  he  obtained,^  and  not  to :  having 
endured.®  By  the  promise  is  meant  wliat  was  previously  a 
matter  of  promise,  as  expressed  by  the  participle :  having  promised. 
It  is  this  definite  thing  that  is  expressed  by  the  article.  By  :  so  he 
obtained  is  meant,  that  then  Abraham  came  to  possess  the  thing 
as  a  promise  so  as  to  make  it  his  in  a  manner  that  previously 
it  was  not  by  the  foregoing  promising.  If  it  be  objected  that 
with  this  meaning,  obtaining  the  promise,  as  related  to  having 
promised,  expresses  no  progress  of  thought,^  we  may  reply,  that 
the  same  objection  might  as  justly  be  made  to  the  successive 
transactions  themselves.  That  God  should  promise,  and  then 
confirm  the  same  promise  by  an  oath,  as  signalizing  and  reward- 

'  So  de  Wette,  Liin.,  von.  Hof.  ^  Liin.        ^  Josephus,  Antiq.,  I.  3,  §  2. 

*  Kom.  iv.  11.  *  Liin.,  Alford.  ®  von  Hof.  '  So  Liin. 


vi.  IG.]  WHAT   OP   AN    OATH.  213 

ing  the  faith  Abraham  showed  in  oifering  up  Isaac,  is  proof 
that,  ou  God's  part,  the  latter  transaction  added  to  those  that 
preceded.  Moreover,  giving  in  that  way  the  promise  that  had 
before  been  promised,  was  the  final  act  that  made  Abraham  for- 
ever and  unalterably  the  heir  of  the  promise.  And  it  became 
the  event  to  which  the  posterity  of  Abraham  constantly  appealed, 
and  also  God  himself,  as  their  title  to  be  heirs  of  the  same 
promise.^ 

Tlie  Apostle  has  incited  his  readers  by  motives  draicn  from  the 
examples  of  faith  and  patience,  thus  drawing  them  from  before. 
He  proceeds  to  add  another  consideration,  pressing  them  by  urgency 
from  behind. 

Ver.  16.  For  men,  indeed,  swear  by  the  greater ;  and  in  every 
dispute  of  theirs  the  oath  is  final  for  confirmation. 

The  progress  of  thought,  we  observe  here,  justifies  the  reten- 
tion of  .viv,  against  the  editors  L.  Tr.,  Tisch.,  viii.,  W.  and  H., 
and  the  Revision  of  1881,  who  drop  it;  and  with  Recep.  Tisch. 
vii.,  Del ;  Alford,  von  Hof,  de  Wette  (?)  who  retain  it. 

The  Apostle  appeals  to  what  is  practised  among  men,^  and 
thus  introduces  the  following  consideration,  by  an  argumentum 
ad  hominum.  That  men  make  oath,  and  what  is  the  force  of 
the  oath  so  sworu  (such  is  the  force  of  the  article),  is  the  matter 
presented  in  this  verse.  The  expression  :  by  the  greater  only 
completes  the  description  of  the  oath  as  made  by  men,  without 
emphasising  the  antithesis  to  the  way  in  Avhich  God  swore,  as  is 
commonly  thought.^  The  special  point  is,  that  the  oath  is  final, 
and  confirms,  or  makes  steadfast,  that  about  which  it  is  made. 
This  prepares  the  way  for  the  important  statement  that  follows. 

Ver.  17.  "Wherein  God,  willing  to  show  more  abundantly  to 
the  heirs  of  the  promise  the  immutability  of  His  will,  interposed 
with  an  oath ;  18.  in  order  that  by  two  immutable  things,  in  which  it 
is  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  we  may  have  strong  exhortation,  who 
are  fleeing,  to  lay  hold  of  the  hope  set  before  us. 

Understanding  that  the  Apostle  is  adding  something  different 
from  what  he  presents,  vers.  12-15,  we  find  no  occasion  for 
supposing  that  God's  oath  and  the  promise  mentioned  here  refer 

^  Gen.  xxvi.  3;  iv.  24  ;  Exod.  xiii.  5,  etc.     ^  Conip.  ix.  16,  17.     ^  Comp.  Del. 


214  TWO   IMMUTABLE   THINGS.  [vi.  17,  18. 

to  the  things  similarly  named,  vers.  13-15.  Our  verses  have 
been  commonly  so  understoood  by  expositors.  But  it  is  far 
from  plain  what  connection  there  is  between  the  promises  given 
to  Abraham,  mentioned  in  verse  15,  and  the  promise  that  sets 
before  the  Apostle  and  his  readers  a  hope  that  enters  within 
the  vail  (ver.  19).  The  promise  of  our  verse  17  is  something  the 
readers  have  "  received,"  and  of  which  they  may  become  the  heirs, 
if  only  they  have  faith  and  patience.  It  sets  before  them  a  hope,  i.  e., 
thing  hoped  for,^  which  is  the  hope  (ver.  18).  It  is  evident  that  the 
Apostle,  in  the  statement  of  our  verses,  has  reverted  completely  to 
the  situation  of  himself  and  his  readers.  This  relieves  us  from 
being  constrained  to  find  in  the  iv  m  nothing  more  than  a  "  where- 
fore." ^  It  means  wherein,  =  "  in  that  wherein ; "  ^  and  the  relative 
refers  to  all  that  constituted  the  subject  at  verses  11,  12,  where 
"  promise  "  and  "  inherit "  express  it,  and  which  is  now  resumed 
in  the  expression,  heirs  of  the  promise.  And  /SwuAo/Jievo?,  /S^uA?;? 
make  a  paranomasia  *  that  has  the  eifect  of  expressing  a  determin- 
ate purpose ;  and  so  it  is  intended  that  the  foregoing  translation 
shall  be  understood,  the  "  willing — his  will,"  being  used  only  to 
reproduce  the  paranomasia  of  the  original.  The  meaning  is : 
God  intended  to  show  that  his  counsel  was  immutable. 

These  considerations  require  us  to  identify  in  the  things  men- 
tioned, viz.,  the  promise,  the  oath,  and  the  hope,  subjects  that  the 
Apostle  presents  as  belonging  to  that  situation.  These  we  must 
not  find  ^  in  what  is  mentioned  below,  vii.  20-22,  as  confirmed  by 
oath,  seeing  that  could  not  be  understood  by  the  readers  to  be 
referred  to  before  it  was  mentioned.  We  must  look  back  for 
these  subjects.  We  find  them  all  in  iv.  1-3;  and,  taking  the 
whole  context,  iii.  9 — iv.  13,  they  have  been  given  that  promi- 
nence and  importance  that  justifies  the  Author  in  expecting  his 
present  language  to  recall  them.  This  connection,  then,  ought 
to  have  received  more  than  the  slight  notice  taken  of  it  by 
expositors.® 

The  promise  now  mentioned  (ver.  17)  is  the  promise  of  entering 

1  See  on  ver.  11.  ^  As  e.  g.,  Bleek,  Alford. 

»  Comp.  ii.  18 ;  Winer,  Gram.,  p.  387.  *  Comp.  Bleek. 

*  As  von  Hof.,  Angus.  ®  See  Stuart,  Lindsay. 


Vi.  17,  18.]    PROMISE  OF  REST  ;  OATH  OF  EXCLUSION.  215 

into  God's  rest.  The  heirs  of  the  promise  arc  those  that  have 
obtained  that  promise,  comprehending,  as  in  iv.  1,  2,  those  of 
the  past  as  well  as  the  present.  That,  too,  was  a  promise  given 
long  ago,  and  then  ^  made  the  subject  of  an  oath.  It  was  not, 
indeed,  an  oath  conp-ming  the  promise.  And  it  is  to  be  noted, 
that  our  verse  17  does  not  say  that  such  was  the  purpose  of 
God's  oath ;  nor  does  a  single  word  in  the  context  express,  by 
its  own  power,  "the  dejDth  of  God's  condescension  in  the  act,"  ^  or 
grace  or  condescension  at  all,  except  ip-crirtuav^.  It  was  to 
demonstrate  {l-uJsT^ai)  His  will  that  God  sware ;  especially  the 
unalterableness  of  it.  And  fiooXrj  is  not  used  in  the  New  Test- 
ament to  express  the  purpose  of  God  when  it  proposes  gracious 
things,^  but  where  it  concerns  the  manifestation  of  severity,^  or, 
more  commonly,  without  implying  either  grace  or  severity,  but 
simply  that  Sovereign  will,  and  not  chance  or  the  mere  will  of 
men,  ruled  in  what  took  place.^  And  when  "  God  sware  if  they 
shall  enter  into  JNIy  rest,"  He  did  most  abundantly  demonstrate 
the  immutability  of  His  will  in  reference  to  the  promise  that  the 
Apostle  has  written  up  in  capitals  as  that  under  which  the  people 
of  God  now  live,  of  which  he  has  said,  "  Let  us  give  diligence  to 
enter  into  that  rest.  ^  And  this  demonstration  was  to  the  heirs  of 
the  promise,  as  well  as  to  others,  as  the  Apostle  has  shown  by 
his  ample  use  of  it  (iii.  7 — iv.  13)  for  exhortation^  God,  says  the 
Apostle  expressively,  interposed  with  an  oath,  by  which  inter- 
posed he  may  mean  to  intimate  the  friendliness^  of  this  otherwise 
severe  purpose ;  for,  as  it  concerned  those  that  fell  in  the  wilder- 
ness, it  w^as  severity,  but  towards  the  heirs  of  the  promise,  it  was 
goodness,®  viz.,  the  goodness  of  faithful  warning  and  exhortation. 
Accordingly,  the  Apostle  adds :  in  order  that  we  may  have  a  strong 
exhortation,  etc.  (ver.  18).  For  exhortation,  or  "incitement,"  is 
the  meaning  of  napd-Ar^ffi?  here,  as  it  is  in  the  other  instance  of  using 
the  same  word  in  our  epistle,^"  as,  also,  the  constant  meaning  of 
the  equally  recurring  verbal   form  Ttapaxahlv,  is  "  to  exhort." " 

>  Num.  xiv.  22  sqq.  *  Del.  "  Against  Del. 

*  Luke  vii.  30,  which  is  Del.  rof  (!)  *  Acts  ii.  23 ;  iv.  28,  etc. 

®iv.  11.      ''  wapaKay.elre  k.  t.  1.  iii.  13.      *See  in  Passow  Lex.  s.  v-  fiiasTevu. 
»  Com.  Eom.  xi.  22.  i°  xii.  5  ;  xiii.  23.         "  u.  13 ;  x.  26 ;  xiii.  19,  22. 


216  A  STEONG   EXHORTATION.  [vi.  19. 

Two  immutable  things  contribute  to  make  the  exhortation  strongs ; 
the  Apostle  means  the  promise  to  those  "  that  believe,"  ^  and  the 
oath  of  exclusion  to  the  "  faithless."  ^  These  are  two  things 
in  which  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie.  The  unalterable  purpose 
of  God  in  both  respects  must  operate  as  a  weighty  incentive  to 
those  who  would  inherit  the  promise. 

Those  that  feel  the  cogency  of  the  exhortation, — viz.,  himself 
and  his  readers, — the  Apostle  describes  as  those  who  flee  for 
refuge ;  for  such  is  the  exact  meaning  of  the  present  participle 
01  xaracfuyovre^.  He  thus  represents  them  as  actually  fleeing, 
but  not  yet  in  the  refuge.  He  has  already  (ii.  1-3)  represented 
"  giving  heed  to "  the  word  of  Christ,  as  "  escaping. " 
[nu>(7  ■rjfj.tT<i  iA<peu^6!i£i%j).  He  now  consistently  represents  faith 
and  endurance,  with  reference  to  the  promise,  as  fleeing  for  refuge.^ 
We  flee  for  refuge ;  we  are  not  in  the  refuge ;  for  that  is  the 
substance  of  the  promise,  viz.,  "  rest,"  and  the  thing  hoped  for. 
The  exhortation  is  to  lay  hold  of  the  hope  set  before  us.  For 
TtapdxX,*  and  not  xarafuy.^  is  to  be  connected  with  xpaT7,aai  x.  r.  X. 
as  the  sense  just  given  of  present  the  expressions  demands.  And 
here,  by  Trpoxet/j-ivsg,  denoting  something  out  of,  and  before  our- 
selves, it  is  made  expressly  clear  that  IXtti^  does  not  mean  hoping, 
but  the  substance  hoped  for.  Our  refuge  is  not  in  laying  hold 
on  the  hope,  but  in  the  hoped-for  thing  itself,  on  which,  having 
escaped  and  while  fleeing,  we  lay  hold  by  faith  that  we  may 
come  to  its  refuge.  This  thought  the  AjDOstle  proceeds  to 
express. 

Ver.  19.  "Which  we  have  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul  [a  hope] 
both  sure  and  steadfast  and  entering  into  the  part  within  the  vail. 

The  Revision  of  1881  connects  all  the  adjective  expressions 
(«<7^aA^ — jSziSaca'^ — siffep^o/iivrf^)  with  ^v  referring  to  i^~c^,  which 
seems  to  be  the  correct  rendering.  The  difficulty  of  fitting  the 
figure  of  the  anchor  through  all  these  expressions  requires  this 
rendering.     On    account  of  this  difficulty  some^  connect  only 

aa<paXri  and  /Sej^aiav   with  ayxupav,  and    eiffsp^o/x.  with   ^v.      But  if 

'  iv.  3.  Mii.  11,  12.  3  Comp.  in  Bleek,  Del. 

*  Liin.,  von  Hof.,  Stuart,  etc.  ^  de  Wette,  Del.,  ALford. 

®  Liin.,  quotes  Bleek,  Bloomfield. 


vi.  11).]  THE  ANCHOR   OF   THE   SOUL.  217 

the  first  two  connect  with  anchor,  then  all  must  do  so/  for  the 
T£ — zai — xat  bind  all  of  them  in  the  same  construction.  The 
figure  of  the  anchor  is  classical,  but,  excepting  the  present 
instance,  nowhere  used  in  scripture.  The  anchor  is  the  depend- 
ence of  the  sailor  on  the  precarious  sea,  to  keep  him  from  drift- 
ing to  destruction  on  a  lee-shore.  It  is  a  misunderstanding  of 
the  figure  to  suppose  ^  that  the  anchor  involves  the  notion  of  the 
harbor.  When  in  the  harbor,  the  harbor  itself  is  the  ship's 
safety;  and  is  still  more  the  security  of  the  disembarked  voyagers. 
It  is  equally  gratuitous  to  suppose  ^  that  the  figure  of  the  anchor 
briu";s  alono;  with  it  the  bottom  of  the  sea  on  which  the  anchor 
lays  hold,  w^ien  the  seamen  cast  anchor.  The  anchor  is  the 
sailor's  indispensable  furniture ;  he  takes  it  wherever  he  sails  ; 
he  holds  on  to  it,  not  only  when  it  is  cast  into  the  deep,  but  also 
while  it  is  stowed  in  the  ship.  For  it  is  his  safety.  Similarly 
''  the  hope  set  before  us,"  on  which  we  have  laid  hold,  is  an 
anchor  of  the  soul.  And  that,  we  suppose,  exhausts  the  figure. 
Thus  Avhat  follows  is  not  an  amplification  of  the  figure,  but  is 
meant  to  particularize  things  about  this  hope  that  bring  it,  as  a 
topic  of  discourse,  into  relation  with  Jesus  as  our  High  Priest. 
It  is  sure,  i.  e.,  a  matter  of  certainty,  being  certainly  there  where 
we  hope  to  find  it.*  It  is  steadfast,  therefore  it  will  continue  to 
be  what  and  where  it  is.  As  for  where  it  is,  instead  of  saying, 
in  the  common  form,  that  it  is  laid  up  in  heaven,^  the  Apostle 
describes  it  as  entering  into  the  part  within  the  vail.  Not  that 
he  means  a  different  notion ;  but,  as  already  said,  he  thus  sets 
the  hope  in  that  relation  wherein  he  means  to  speak  of  Christ, 
and  show  that  this  hope  is  what  Christ  makes  it  by  the  minis- 
try he  discharges  there.  He  says :  entering,  when  Ave  might 
expect  him  to  say  only  that  it  w  there.  This  may  be  owing  to 
the  fact  that  the  Holiest  was  habitually  referred  to  as  a  place 
where  the  high  priest  "entered,"  not  where  he  was,^  and  because 
the  hope  follows  Jesus. 

'  Liin.,  Alford,  von  Ilof.,  etc. 

'^  Comp.  common  Christian  language  in  liymns,  etc. 

"  As  Ebrard.  *  Comp  aa<paX£ia^  Acts  v.  23, 

*  Col.  i.  5.  6  See  in  Del. 


218  JESUS   WITHIN   THE   VAIL.  [vi.  20. 

Ver.  20.  Whither  Jesus  entered  a  forerunner  for  us,  having 
become  a  High  Priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

We  observe  that,  by  forerunner,  the  Apostle  still  maintains 
the  image  of  fleeing  for  refuge  (ver.  18)  ;  which,  we  may  note,  is 
one  more  reason  for  assuming  that  he  does  not  extend  the  figure 
of  the  anchor  through  ver.  19.  Those  fleeing  for  refuge  send  a 
forerunner  in  advance  to  provide  for  their  reception.  For  a 
forerunner  means  that  others  are  coming  on  after  him.  When 
those  coming  after  have  also  entered  in  where  the  forerunner  has 
entered,  then  they  Avill  be  in  the  refuge  to  which  they  flee.  Such 
a  forerunner  is  Jesus  ;  not,  however,  by  our  sending,  but  by  His 
own  going.^  He  entered  to  the  part  within  the  vail  for  us,  i.  e., 
on  our  behalf,  or  as  the  high  priest  entered  the  Holiest  on  behalf 
of  the  people.  This  Jesus  did  as  High  Priest.  For  such  He 
had  become,  and  as  such  He  was  saluted  when  He  ascended  to 
God,  as  the  Apostle  affirms  v.  10.  The  aorist  participle  (j'S'^o/j.z'm)^) 
as  related  to  the  finite  verb  in  the  aorist  ^  denotes  that  what  He 
became  preceded  His  act  of  entering  within  the  vail. 

Thus  the  Apostle  is  once  more  back  to  his  subject  (v.  10)  after 
a  long  digression  (v.  10 — vi.  20).  But,  as  at  v.  10  we  found 
this  theme  enlarged  beyond  its  presentation  at  iii.  14,  from  :  "  a 
great  High  Priest,"  to  :  "  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chizedek," so  here  we  have  it  enlarged  further  by  the  addition  of 
the  predicate  forever,  which  in  the  sequel  appears  very  important. 
The  present  statement  of  the  theme,  by  putting  xard  zijv  rd^iv 
AhXycffeSix  emphatically  to  the  front,  prepares  the  reader  for  the 
discourse  that  is  immediately  to  follow. 

Before  taking  hold  of  that,  let  us  review  the  discourse  that 
leads  up  to  it. 

At  V.  10  the  Apostle  presents  the  theme  of  Christ  a  High 
Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  received  into  the  heavens 
and  there  greeted  by  God  with  this  title.  To  this  he  now  adds 
the  further  predicate  forever.  He  has  derived  this  title  from 
Ps.  ex.  4.  He  has  expressly  said  (v.  11)  that  he  has  much  to 
say  about  it ;  and  now  it  appears  that  it  is  his  purpose  to  com- 
municate something  of  that  "  much  discourse."     He  complains 

^  John  xiv.  2.  '^  Comp.  t.  1,  9. 


vii.  1-3.]  RESUME  OF  V.  10 — VI.  20.  219 

(v.  11,  12)  of  the  dulluess  of  his  readers  as  rendering  his  task 
difficult,  intimating  in  particular  that  their  dullness  makes  them 
ignorant  of  the  import  of  "the  elements  of  the  beginning  of  the 
oracles  of  God."  He  means  this  in  general,  but,  of  course,  has 
particularly  in  mind  their  ignorance  of  these  things  as  they 
relate  to  what  he  now  desires  to  impart.  He  thus  intimates,  that 
a  knowledge  of  elementary  things  of  the  Old  Testament  is  essen- 
tial to  the  comprehension  of  what  he  would  impart ;  knowledge 
not  merely  of  the  facts  ;  that  the  readers  had  ;  but  knowledge  of 
their  significance  and  import.  He  adduces  a  considerable  amount 
of  these  elementary  things  in  the  following  discourse  vii.  1 — x. 
18;  and  does  it  in  accordance  with  what  he  says  v.  12:  "Ye 
have  need  that  one  teach  you  again  what  are  the  elements  of  the 
beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God."  And  first  he  begins  with 
what  pertains  to  Melchizedek. 

A  survey  of  the  history  of  the  exposition  of  vii.  1-25,^  must 
convince  one  that  the  Apostle's  reproaches,  v.  11, 12,  are  deserved 
by  more  than  the  original  readers  of  our  epistle.  It  affords, 
also,  ample  illustration  that  his  theme  is  "  difficult  of  interpreta- 
tion." Though  he  himself  undertakes  to  teach  the  elements 
relating  to  his  present  theme  with  the  simplicity  of  a  master, 
many  have  confounded  this  simplicity  by  bringing  to  the  con- 
sideration of  what  he  says  much  knowledge,  and  more  imagina- 
tion, that  have  no  relation  to  the  subject. 

VII.  1.  For  this  Melchizedek,  king-  of  Salem,  priest  of  God  most 
high,  who  met  Abraham  returning  from  the  slaughter  of  the  kings, 
and  blessed  him,  2.  to  whom  also  Abraham  divided  a  tenth  part  of 
all,  first  indeed  being  interpreted  King  of  righteousness,  and  then 
also  King  of  Salem,  which  is  King  of  peace,  3.  without  father,  with- 
out mother,  without  genealogy,  having  neither  beginning  of  days 
nor  end  of  life,  but  having  been  made  like  to  the  Son  of  God, 
remaineth  a  priest  forever. 

The  verses  before  us  constitute  one  long  sentence,  in  which 
the  Apostle  adduces  several  items  drawn  exclusively  from  the 
scriptural  account  of  ISIelchizedek  found  Ps.  ex.  4,  and  Gen.  xiv. 
18-20,  which  for  him  and  his  readers  are  the  only  sources  of 

*  See  in  Alford. 


220  THE   PRIEST   FOREVER.  [vii.  1-3. 

information  about  Melchizedek.  It  is  common  to  represent^ 
that  some  of  these  items  (as  far  as  Abraham)  are  expressed  appo- 
sitionally  to  Melchizedek :  that  the  rest  are  predicative,  and 
belong  to  the  predicate  of  the  direct  verb  :  remains  a  priest  for- 
ever ;  and  that  these  latter,  all  of  them,  enumerate  qualities  with 
which,  and  according  to  which,  Melchizedek  remains  a  priest 
forever.  To  this  we  must  object,  that,  first  it  gives  no  proper 
force  to  yap  =  for,  which  obviously  connects  with  the  statement 
of  vi.  20  that  Jesus  is  High  Priest  forever  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek.  It  makes  ydp  explanatory  =  that  is,^  and  correctly. 
But  the  interpretation  issues  in  making  it  argumentative,  by  tak- 
ing the  predicative  terms :  without  father  .  .  .  nor  end  of  life 
as  the  ground  for  affirming  that  Melchizedek  remains  a  priest 
forever.  It  is  argumentative  to  say  :  Jesus  is  High  Priest  for- 
ever, for  Melchizedek,  owing  to  his  being  without  genealogy, 
and  having  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,  remains  a 
priest  forever.  Again,  were  it  true  that  the  predicates  in  ques- 
tion proved  Melchizedek  to  be  one  who  remains  forever,  it  could 
only  have  force,  as  related  to  Jesus  remaining  a  priest  forever, 
if  Melchizedek's  remaining  such  forever  be  considered  as  included 
in  the  sum  of  the  notions,  or  as  being  itself  tlie  sum  of  the 
notion  expressed  by  :  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  after  which  Jesus 
is  said  to  be  priest.  But  as  a  fact,  the  order  itself,  and  the  per- 
petuity/ of  the  priest  are  distinct  notions.  This  appears  from  the 
way  in  which  they  are  brought  in,  as  noted  above  on  vi.  20,  and 
also  from  the  subsequent  discourse,  vers.  4  sqq.,  wliere  first  the 
former  (ver.  6)  and  then  the  latter  (ver.  8),  is  emphasized ;  and 
this  with  reiteration  (vers.  11-14  and  vers,  15, 16).  Again,  while 
there  is  nothing  in  the  clauses  King  of  Salem  .  .  .  without  gene- 
alogy to  denote  that  they  are  not  one  and  all  introduced  in  the 
same  way  and  with  the  same  intent,  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  far 
from  plain  that  the  predicates :  without  father  .  .  .  nor  end  of 
life  have  any  logical  relation  like  a  premise  for  the  inference 
remains  a  priest  forever. 

For  these  reasons,  and  many  difficulties  that  are  the  offsprings 
of  the  construction  we  reject,  we  must  choose  another. 

^  Comp.  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Ebrard,  Lindsay,  Davidson,  etc.  ^  Ebrard. 


vii.  1-3.    AFTER  THE  ORDER  OF  MELCHIZEDEK.         221 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  Apostle,  iu  vers.  4-25,  does  not  once 
draw  a  comparison  between  Melchizedek  and  Jesus,  as  he  does 
when  arguing  from  the  high  priest,  c.  g.^  with  a  o&Vaif  xat  6 
•/ptartx; ;  ^  but  he  states  everything  as  of  Melchizedek  himself. 
It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  he  means  the  reader  himself  to  make 
the  inference  of  the  correlative  truth  regarding  Christ ;  and  such 
is,  accordingly,  the  common  way  of  interpreting  all  that  is  said 
of  Melchizedek.  But  we  are  led  to  suppose  the  Apostle  would 
be  differently  understood  :  first,  from  the  difference  of  manner 
just  remarked  on  ;  again  from  the  obvious  fact  that  the  Apostle's 
chief  purpose  is  to  affirm  certain  things  of  Christ,  and  all  their 
force  as  affirmed  is  only  important  as  true  of  him ;  and  again, 
because,  while  all  that  is  affirmed  is  perfectly  reasonable  when 
said  of  Christ,  some  of  the  things,  and  particularly  the  abiding 
forever,  are  quite  incomprehensible  when  said  of  Melchizedek. 
On  this  account  we  understand,  that  the  Apostle,  having 
expressed  his  theme  :  "  Jesus  become  a  priest  forever  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedek"  (vi.  20),  proceeds  to  speak  of  this  person 
mentioned  in  Ps.  ex.  4,  as  he  is  there  represented,  Jesus  Melchi- 
zedek,^ without  distinguishing  between  the  two  historical  persons 
involved.  What  may  be  said  of  one  he  says  of  either,  meaning 
however  to  represent  in  particular  what  is  true  of  Jesus  as  so 
named  in  the  Ps.  cx.^  He  may  the  more  readily  write  thus,  in 
contrast  with  the  formal  parallels  he  expressly  draws  when  he 
appeals  to  the  Levitical  priests  and  high  priest  and  the  taber- 
nacle and  its  furniture,  etc.,  because  his  Psalm  text  so  unquali- 
fiedly declares  the  Melchizedek  character  of  the  Messiah.  This 
makes  it  needless  for  him  first  to  point  the  parallel. 

The  subject,  then,  before  the  Apostle  in  our  chap.  vii.  is  not 
the  Melchizedek  of  Gen.  xiv.,  but  the  ]\Ielchizedek  of  Ps.  ex., 
and  named  vi.  20.  Our  vers.  1-3  are  connected  with  that  fey 
For,  which  introduces  expressions  explanatory  of  the  subject : 
"  Jesus  become  a  high  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek." 

'v.  5 ;  ix.  28 ;  comp.  viii.  3.  *  Comp.  J.  Cappellus. 

^  As  resembling  this  manner  of  blending  predicates  of  different  subjects 
without  express  comparison,  comp.  Eph.  v.  23-33 ;  Gal.  iv.  22-31 ;  1  Cor. 
X.  1-1. 


222  ELEMENTS   OF  THE  SUBJECT.  [vii.  1-3. 

This  Melchizedek  (duto?  6  MeX^),  says  the  Apostle,  as  naming  the 
subject  just  described  ;  just  as  the  Apostle  Peter/  after  describ- 
ing David's  prophetic  description  of  Christ's  resurrection  says : 
"  this  Jesus  {ruurov  r.  "hjaouv),  as  naming  the  subject  so  described 
by  David.  To  this  subject  he  adds  a  number  of  terms  apposi- 
tionally,  viz.,  all  from  King"  of  Salem  to  without  genealogy. 
They  are  all  drawn  from  the  record  Gen.  xiv.  18-20,  and  are 
descriptive  of  the  subject,  reproducing  the  traits  of  the  character 
or  person  which  the  Psalmist,  or  rather  God  by  the  Psalmist,^ 
has  devoted  to  such  significant  use.  This  person,  says  the 
Apostle,  having  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but  hav- 
ing been  made  like  to  the  Son  of  God,  remains  a  priest  forever ; 
and  excepting  the  first  clause,  the  foundation  of  this  statement  is 
Ps.  xc.  4.  All  this  representation  (vers.  1-3)  is  made,  not  in 
proof  of  anything,  but,  as  said  above,  to  present  "  the  elements 
of  the  oracles  of  God  "  that  are  needed  for  the  proof  the  Apostle 
means  to  give  in  the  sequel.  Yet  these  elements  are  so  enumer- 
ated as  to  present  at  once  the  distinctive  order  of  the  priesthood, 
especially  as  contrasted  with  the  Levitical. 

Psalm  ex.  takes  Melchizedek  to  represent  the  nature  of  the 
promised  Messiah,  viz.,  that  he  is  a  priest  of  a  unique  order ; 
and  the  Psalm  declares,  as  speaking  for  Jehovah,  that  he  is  such 
a  priest  forever.  In  enumerating  the  traits  that  must  accord- 
ingly be  imputed  to  Christ,  the  Apostle  draws  from  the  only 
extant  account  of  the  historical  Melchizedek,  for  the  Psalmist  as 
well  as  for  others.  In  doing  this,  he  does  not  mention  everything, 
as  e.  g.,  he  makes  no  reference  to  Melchizedek's  bringing  forth 
bread  and  wine.  It  is  evident  from  the  sequel,  vers.  4  sqq.,  that 
it  his  aim  to  adduce  such  traits  as  mark  the  greatness  of  the  char- 
acter ascribed  to  Christ,  and  that  make  his  priesthood  unique. 
This  Melchizedek  was  King  of  Salem  ;  was  a  priest  of  God  most 
high.  These  are  the  chief  heads  which  he  further  defines  seria- 
tim immediately  after.  He  met  Abraham  at  the  crisis  of  his 
greatest  worldly  eminence,^  when  returning  with  the  glory  of 
victory.  On  the  one  hand  Melchizedek  blessed  him ;  on  the 
other  he  paid  tithes  to  Melchizedek.  This  is  the  Melchizedekian 
^  Acts  ii.  32.  2  Qo^^^  y.  6.  s  Comp.  Del. 


vii.  1-3.]  ARGUMENT   FROM   SILENCE.  223 

action  that  illustrates  what  the  order  does.  Then  the  significance 
of  Melchizedek's  name  and  of  his  royal  title  is  noted.  The 
former  means  King  of  righteousness ;  the  latter  is  King  of  peace. 
As  the  Apostle  himself  thus  notes  the  significance  he  attaches  to 
the  title  King  of  Salem,  it  is  of  no  importance  to  consider  whether 
as  is  indeed  abundantly  evident/  he  understood  by  Salem  Jeru- 
salem, or  some  other  place.  Following  these  items,  the  Apostle 
mentions  bthers  that  mark  the  unique  character  of  the  priesthood 
ascribed  to  Christ.  The  Psalmist,  describing  that  priesthood  by 
the  name  Melchizcdek,  signifies  that  it  would  not  be  essential  to 
it  that  he  was  without  father,  without  mother,  without  genealogy, 
because  Melchizedek  appears  without  any  mention  of  these.  What 
is  meant  by  this  becomes  plain  when,  vers,  6,  13,  14,  the  Apostle 
points  the  contrast  with  the  Levitieal  priesthood.  The  scripture 
calls  ]\Ielchizedek :  priest  of  God  most  high,  yet  mentions  no 
father,  no  mother,  no  genealogy  that  explain  or  intimate  his  title 
to  be  a  priest,  titles  so  important  to  the  notion  of  a  legitimate 
priesthood  according  to  the  law  of  Moses.  The  significance  of 
what  is  thus  predicated  of  Melchizedek  is  wholly  in  reference  to 
the  fact  that  he,  or  rather  the  Melchizedek  JNIessiah,  is  called  a 
priest.  For  it  is  common  enough  for  the  Old  Testament,  as  well 
as  the  New,  to  mention  important  persons  without  making  allu- 
sion to  their  parents  or  descent.  It  is,  moreover,  Avorthy  of  note 
in  passing,  that  the  Apostle's  way  of  reasoning  here  from  the 
silence  of  scripture  is  something  totally  different  from  that  prac- 
tised by  the  so-called  higher  criticism.  Did  he  mean  to  affirm, 
as  indeed  some  ^  have  absurdly  supposed  he  does,  that  jNIelchize- 
dek  had  no  parents,  and  that  he  was  more  than  a  mere  man,  and 
did  he  base  that  affirmation  on  the  fact  that  scri})turc  mentions 
no  parents  of  his,  that  would,  indeed,  be  arguing  from  the 
silence  of  scripture  in  the  fashion  so  fondly  indulged  by  the 
higher  criticism.  It  would  be,  likewise,  such  a  violent  use  of 
scripture,  we  think,  did  the  Apostle,  on  the  ground  of  such 
silence,  inculcate  ^  the  notion  that  Melchizedek  was  a  person  dif- 
fering from  common  men  and  having  a  great  and  mysterious 

1  Comp.  Del.,  Alford. 

*  Bleek ;  and  Orig.,  Epiphan.,  etc.,  see  in  Pool.  Synop.  '  As  Alford. 


224  MADE   LIKE   THE   SON    OF   GOD.  [vii.  1-3. 

eminence.  If  one  may  reason  so  of  him,  it  does  not  appear  why 
one  may  not  reason  in  a  similar  manner  of  others  that  are  intro- 
duced into  sacred  history  in  the  same  way,  e.  g.,  Elijah. 

The  Apostle  adds  two  more  predicates,  which,  like  the  three 
just  named,  are  significant  with  reference  to  the  priesthood 
described  ;  viz.,  that  it  lacked  something  deemed  very  important 
to  priesthood  under  the  law  of  Moses  :  having  neither  beginning 
of  days  nor  end  of  life.  "  It  must  be  noted  that  the  Apostle  does 
not  say  :  '  neither  beginning  of  life  nor  end,'  but :  neither  begin- 
ning of  days,  inasmuch  as  apyji  rjijspwv  can,  in  the  case  of  an 
incumbent  of  an  office,  be  the  beginning  of  his  term  of  office 
(comp.  Matt.  ii.  1).  Whereas  those,  that  otherwise  in  redemp- 
tive history  held  the  priesthood,  entered  on  the  office  at  a  certain 
period  to  continue  in  it  till  death.  Melchizedek  is  the  priest  he 
is  in  the  sacred  history  in  such  a  fashion  that  nothing  is  said  of 
his  entrance  on  office  nor  of  the  end  of  his  life."  ^  We  are 
unable  to  see  a  deeper  reference^  in  the  present  expressions. 
But  these  notions  being  expressed  participially  (s/wv)  without 
the  article,  may  belong  to  the  predicate  ;  not  so  directly  as  the 
following  clause,  owing  to  their  negative  character ;  and  perhaps 
they  need  not  be  drawn  to  the  predicate  at  all. 

The  Apostle  adds :  but  having  been  made  like  to  the  Son  of 
God.  Conjoined  with  the  foregoing  by  oi  =  but  =  "  but  rather,"^ 
the  present  expression  is  the  positive  contrary  of  the  preceding 
negatives  that  point  to  the  Levitical  ordinances  which  give  those 
negatives  their  significance.  The  readers  would,  of  their  own 
suggestion,  notice  that :  without  father  .  .  .  having  neither  begin- 
ning of  days  nor  end  of  life,  describes  a  priesthood  unlike  the 
Levitical.  The  actual  likeness  the  Apostle  expresses  :  it  was  to 
the  Son  of  God.  He  says  having  been  made  like,  and  by  this 
he  appeals  to  the  authority  of  Ps.  cx.^  and  means  that  God  was 
the  maker  of  this  likeness.^  At  v.  6  the  Apostle  has  first  used 
this  text,  and  there  he  represents  God  as  the  agent  of  what  is 
expressed  by  it,  and  as  doing  what  is  so  expressed,  by  and  at  the 
time  of,  the  declaration  of  the  Psalm.     Nothing  has  intervened 

'  von  Hof.  *  Against  Del.,  Alford.  ^  Comp.  vi.  12. 

*  With  Ebrard ;  against  Del.,  Alford,  etc.  *  See  in  Del. 


vii.  1—3.1  dyw;j.(nw/ii><iii.  225 

to  change  the  thought  there  expressed.  The  word  a<pcofj.()to)fj.iv>i? 
does  uot  elsewhere  occur  iu  the  New  Testament  nor  in  the  LXX. ; 
but  it  is  classical.'  It  is,  however,  used  in  the  "  Epistle  of  Jere- 
miah "  iv.  62,  70,^  and,  as  there  used,  means  "  to  become  like." 
And  in  our  text  it  may  mean  no  more.  So  that,  following  the 
common  interpretation,  as  we  have  done  above,  and  defining  who 
is  to  be  thought  of  as  the  maker  of  the  likeness,  may  be  overload- 
ing the  expression.  Yet  "to  become"  like  means  to  become 
indistinguisluible  from  that  to  which  Melchizedek  became  like ; 
as  the  Jews  became  indistinguishable  from  the  Babylonians  when 
they  failed  to  act  as  the  counsel  runs  in  the  "  Ep.  of  Jer.,"  ver. 
4  :  "  Beware  that  ye  in  no  wise  be  like  the  strangers  {a<poiJ.oiiodivTE'i 
T0T9  aXh)<puh)i<;  a<po[ioiwi^Ts).  By  the  use  made  of  Melchizedek 
Ps.  ex.,  that  character  has  become  something  totally  different 
from  what  he  appears  Gen.  xiv.  This  obvious  fact  is  sufficient 
answer  to  those  ^  who  object  that  Ps.  ex.  makes  Christ  like  Mel- 
chizedek, and  not  the  reverse,  and  who  urge,  therefore,  that  it  is 
not  there,  but  in  Gen.  xiv.  that  the  Apostle  finds  the  evidences 
of  making  like.  Without  the  authority  of  Ps.  ex.  the  Apostle 
had  never  found  this  likeness.  By  naming  Jesus  in  this  connec- 
tion :  the  Son  of  God,  the  Apostle  does  not  point  a  resemblance 
intimated,  as  is  supposed,*  in  the  expressions  without  father  .  .  . 
nor  end  of  life,  as  though  these  traits  were  literally  realized  in 
the  personal  attributes  of  Christ  as  regards  His  eternal  being. 
How  can  likeness  be  expressed  to  the  term  without  father  by 
calling  one  a  son  ?  So  naming  Jesus  has  the  effect  of  pointing 
the  contrast  between  the  inferior  Levitical  priesthood,  that  is 
excluded  from  the  likeness  here  expressed,  and  Christ,  who  is 
the  subject  of  the  likeness.  The  Apostle  gives  the  name  that  he 
has  already  exalted  at  the  beginning  of  the  epistle,  and  connected  * 
with  the  declaration  in  the  first  verse  of  Ps.  ex.  as  representing 
its  meaning.  The  expression  :  but  become  like  the  Son  of  God, 
is,  in  fact,  by  the  force  of  the  i^i  =  "  but,"  antithetical  of  all  those 
that  precede.  The  latter :  King  of  Salem  .  .  .  nor  end  of  life, 
sum  up  the  elements  of  this  historical  character  as  found  in  Gen. 

1  See  Alford.  ^  j^xX.  Ed.  Tisch.  =»  Del. ;  de  Wette. 

*  Calvin,  Alford,  Lindsay,  etc.,  comp.  Del.  *  i.  13. 

15 


226  THE   ORDEK   OF   THIS   PRIEST.  [vii.  1-3. 

xiv. :  the  present  expression  interprets  the  Ps.  ex.,  declaring  what 
that  character,  with  these  traits,  becomes  by  the  representation 
of  the  Psalmist.  Thus  the  clause :  but  become  like  to  the  Son 
of  God,  prepares  the  way  for  the  final  and  crowning  predicate : 
remains  a  priest  forever.  For  ^  these  expressions  go  together. 
The  participle  a^a>/x.  without  the  article,  does  not  belong  to  the 
subject,  as  apposition,  but  is  predicated  of  the  subject,  and  the 
participial  clause  expresses  how  the  thing  affirmed  in  the  predi- 
cate conies  about.^  The  affirmation  itself:  remains  a  priest  for- 
ever, is  simply  on  the  authority  of  Ps.  ex.,  as  ver.  8  shows. 
"  There  is,  indeed,  a  difference  between  ££c  rd  dcrjvexi?  and  ei"?  rdv 
aimva  (Ps.  cx.  4) ;  but  only  this,  that  the  latter  expresses  '  ever- 
lasting,' while  the  former  expresses  '  steady  continuance.'  "  ^ — 
"  Melchizedek  is  not,  in  himself,  the  type  of  Christ,  but  only  by 
David  is  he  stamped  as  type  of  Christ."* 

What  this  Melchizedek  material  becomes  by  the  divine  word 
of  the  Psalmist  is  what  is  before  the  Apostle,  and  that  is  the 
subject  of  his  direct  predicate  :  remains  a  priest  forever.  And 
this  result  we  obtain  without  supplying  a  6'?  as  some  have  done.^ 
Jesus  said :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church."®  And  Paul,  speaking  of  husband  and  wife  and  of 
Christ  and  His  church,  fails  to  distribute  his  predicate,  and  adds 
the  explanation  :  "  But  I  speak  of  Christ  and  the  church." '^  A 
similar  confusion  appears  in  the  Apostle's  predicates  in  our  vers. 
1-3.  But  in  the  crowning  predicate  he  speaks  of  Christ  alone. 
It  is,  therefore,  an  error  to  suppose  that  ]\Ielchizedek  is  here  said 
to  be  a  priest  forever ;  and  the  effiDrts  to  interpret  how  this  may 
be  said  ^  are  gratuitous.  Had  the  Apostle  said  here  :  High  Priest, 
instead  of:  priest,  the  interpretation  just  given  would  have  been 
plain  to  every  reader.  But  he  says  priest,  though  speaking  of 
Christ ;  because  he  is  speaking  from  his  Psalm  text  that  says  no 
more;  and  because  it  is  the  order  of  piiesthood  that  is  now 
noticed.     As  to  order,  Aaron  was  a  Levitical  priest ;  but  among 

'  With  "  Syr.,"  see  in  Alford ;    and  Calvin,  Grotius,  Ebrard  (?)   against  de 
Wette,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Alford,  etc. 

''■  Comp.  V.  1.  ^  von  Hof.  *  Ebrard.  *  e.  g.,  J.  Cappellus. 

«  Matt.  xvi.  18.  '  Eph.  v.  32.  »  See  in  Alford. 


vii.  1— 3.J  Sedexdrujxe,  tvXuyrjxe,  fierdff^r^xi.  227 

Levitical  priests  he  was  high  priest.  So  the  order  of  Christ's 
priesthood  is  described  by  Melchizedek ;  but  as  for  dignity  and 
office  he  is  High  Priest.  In  vers.  16  sqq.  Christ  is  accordingly 
called  simply  "  a  priest."  As  has  been  said  already,  this  state- 
ment (vers.  1-3)  (viz.,  Christ,  as  described  by  Melchizedek, 
remains  priest  forever,  with  the  amplification  of  the  epithet  Mel- 
chizedek) is  not  presented  as  proof,  but  as  the  elements  or  premise 
of  proof  that  is  to  follow  ;  and  it  follows  immediately.  Yet,  as 
has  been  already  noted,  these  elements,  in  their  very  enumera- 
tion, are  so  presented  as  to  set  in  relief  the  unique  character  of 
the  order  of  Christ's  priesthood  as  contrasted  with  the  Levitical 
order. 

The  inferences  drawn  by  the  Apostle  from  the  material  pre- 
sented vers.  1-3  extend  through  vers.  4-25.  Understanding  the 
subject  of  the  predicate :  "  remaineth  a  priest  forever"  (ver.  3)  to  be 
Christ  Himself,  as  just  explained,  and  not,  as  is  commonly  under- 
stood, the  historical  ]\Ielchizedek,  we  are  constrained  to  read  the 
following  vers.  4-25,  differently  from  others.  We  must  understand 
Christ  to  be  spoken  of  there,  and  only  Christ,  where  it  is  common 
to  suppose  that  Melchizedek  is  the  subject.  Jesus,  as  priest,  is 
the  subject ;  but  priest  as  defined  by  Melchizedek.  The  eiFect  of 
this  interpretation  is,  that,  whereas,  it  is  commonly  supposed, 
that  things  are  affirmed  of  Melchizedek,  and  we  must  ourselves 
apply  them  to  Christ,  it  appears  that  we  have  them  affirmed 
directly  of  Christ  Beside  the  reasons  that  we  have  found  in  the 
interpretation  of  vers.  1-3,  for  so  understanding  the  subject,  let 
us  recall  the  observation  already  made  regarding  the  vers.  4-25, 
viz.,  that  no  ourw?^  or  other  expression  is  used  by  the  Apostle  to 
point  the  successive  parallels  between  Melchizedek  and  Jesus 
that  appear  in  vers.  4-25.  No  parallel  or  comparison  whatever 
is  expressed,  but  fiicts  are  predicated  of  the  subject  denoted  by 
«5ro?  =  this  one,  (ver.  4).  It  is  to  be  noted,  moreover,  that  for 
this  subject  we  have  predicates  expressed  in  the  perfect  (<h(hxdTojxe, 
euXoyyjxe,  fj.eritrxT^xe).  It  is  not  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  these 
perfects  to  say  ^  that  they  represent  actions  whose  effects  remain, 
and  stand  there  as  done  in  the  scripture ;   especially  when  the 

^  Comp.  V.  5.  ^  As  von  Ilof.,  Winer  Gram.,  p.  273. 


228  CONSIDER    OUR   PRIEST's    GREATNESS.  [vii.  1-3. 

simultaneous  and  correlative  act  of  other  parties  to  the  transac- 
tion is  expressed  by  the  aorist  (^k'dwxi).  Tliese  perfects  denote  a 
subject  that  belongs  to  the  present/  and  the  abiding  effect  of  the 
actions  they  express,  depends  upon  the  present  existence  of  the 
actor.  As  we  must  say  :  "  Columbus  discovered  America,"  but 
would  say  :  "  Stanley  has  discovered  the  sources  and  the  course 
of  the  Congo."  The  latter  shows  that  we  speak  of  one  that  lives, 
while  the  former  is  said  of  one  that  has  ceased  to  live.  So  the 
Apostle  says  of  Abraham  :  he  paid  tithes ;  but  says  of  the  sub- 
ject denoted  by  ooro^;,  he  has  taken  tithes,  he  has  blessed  Abra- 
ham. In  instances  like  the  present,  "  the  perfect  brings  the  past 
into  contact  with  the  present  "  ^  by  the  fact  of  the  present  exist- 
ence of  the  speaker  or  of  the  one  spoken  of,  that  has  acted.  Nor 
can  we  think  ^  that  this  intentional  use  of  the  perfects,  is  "  because 
of  the  'enduring  nature  of  the  office  and  priesthood  of  Melchiz- 
edek  ;"  for,  beside  finding  this  notion  of  Melchizedek  incompati- 
ble with  the  sober  facts  about  him,  consistency  in  the  discourse 
would  require  the  other  predicate  about  Melchizedek  to  be  in 
the  perfect.  Why  should  the  Apostle  not  say  (vers.  9,  10)  Mel- 
chizedek "  has  met  him,"  as  well  as  has  taken  tithes  of  Levi 
(instead  of  dsdzxarwrac — Melchizedek,  i.  e.,  ouro?  so  interpreted, 
being  the  active  subject  of  the  passive  perfect, — and  tTu^rj'^rrjai)  ? 
In  these  verses  9,  10,  we  think  we  have  a  plain  intimation  of  the 
distinction  between  the  reigning  subject  (expressed  by  wuro?)  and 
Melchizedek.  Both  in  the  naming  of  Melchizedek  and  in  his 
action  expressed  by  the  aorist,  in  an  adverbial  clause,  marking 
time,  he  appears  as  apart ;  while  ouro?  is  the  preceding  and  con- 
tinues to  be  the  reigning  subject,  with  its  actions  expressed  in 
the  perfect.  Furthermore,  as  will  appear  below,  the  represen- 
tation of  ver.  6,  that  appeals  to  the  fact  that  the  subject  expressed 
by  ouzo?  is  not  descended  from  Levi,  has  a  very  natural  sugges- 
tion when  said  of  Christ,  and  is  naturally  reiterated  with  proof 
in  ver.  13  ;  whereas,  when  said  of  INIelchizedek  it  has  an  appear- 
ance of  absurdity  that  is  with  difficulty  set  in  the  light  of  digni- 
fied argument.  For  the  rest,  we  hope  that  the  following 
exposition  of  the  Apostle's  meaning  will  have  a  self-evidential 
1  Comp.  Alford.  ^  Kiihner,  Gram.  II.  p.  127.  ^  With  Alford. 


vii.  4.]  ABRAHAM   GAVE   HIM   TITHES.  229 

force  that  will  confirm  the  correctness  of  the  determining  con- 
struction of  uuTu?  with  which  it  begins. 

Ver.  4.  Now  consider  how  great  this  one  [is]  to  whom  also 
Abraham  gave  a  tenth  out  of  the  chief  [of  the  spoils],  the  Pa- 
triarch ! 

For  the  reasons  with  which  we  have  prefaced  this  section,  we 
take  ouTog  to  mean  Jesus,  with  His  priesthood,  as  defined  by 
Melchizedek,  and  declared  to  remain  forever.  Therefore,  we 
render  it  simply  This  One,  and  not  "this  man  ;"  the  latter  ren- 
dering, being  based  on  the  notion  that  the  historical  Melchizedek 
is  referred  to.  Moreover,  we  must  supply  is  and  not  was  for  the 
same  reason.  And  grammatically,  also,  we  are  constrained  to 
supjjly  is  to  a  subject  whose  predicates  are  expressed  in  the  per- 
fect. Moreover,  it  is  obviously  the  Apostle's  aim  to  set  forth  a 
present  and  actual  greatness.  The  greatness  has  been  already 
expressed  by  some  of  the  things  enumerated  as  marking  the  traits 
of  a  priesthood  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  viz.,  "  King,"  and 
that  indeed  "  King  of  righteousness,"  and  "  King  of  peace."  But 
now  the  Apostle  calls  attention  to  the  comparative  greatness. 
Because,  for  his  purpose,  it  is  expedient  to  show,  that  the  great- 
ness is  superior  to  that  on  which  Jewishly  inclined  persons  were 
tempted  to  build  their  hopes  of  salvation.  It  is  difficult  to 
determine  the  force  of  the  y.ai'^=  also.  It  may  relate  to  ra^Uxog, 
giving  it  a  causal  force,  and  meaning  that,  because  so  great, 
Abraham,  "  accordingly,"  jmid  him  tithes.^  This  has  the  advan- 
tage of  taking  this  and  the  following  xai  in  substantially  the 
same  sense.  Or  it  may  mean  emphasis,  belonging  to  5syA-r,v^  and 
expressing  that  Abraham  "  went  so  far  as  to  pay  tithes."  ^  But 
the  emphatic  way  in  which  the  Patriarch  is  put  at  the  end  of  the 
sentence  makes  it  unlikely  that  an  additional  notion  is  empha- 
sized. The  Apostle  would  express  the  notion  of  how  great  by 
the  single  fact  that  Abraham  acknowledged  it,  and  to  emphasize 
that,  he  adds  the  significant  patriarchal  title. 

Ver.  5.  And  they,  indeed,  of  the  sons  of  Levi  that  receive  the 

^  Which  is  rejected  by  Lach.,  Treg.,  and  put  in  the  margin  by  W.  and  H., 
but  retained  by  Tisch.  viii.  Alford,  Liin.,  Del.,  von  Hof. 

^  von  Hof.  3  So  ^i£,,j.,j .  j)g|^  ^^^ 


230  HIGHER   CRITICISM.  [vii.  5,  6  O. 

priesthood  have  commandmeiit  to  take  tithes  of  the  people  accord- 
ing' to  the  law,  that  is,  of  their  brethren,  though  [these  have] 
come  out  of  the  loins  of  Abraham ;  6  a  but  he  whose  genealogy  is 
not  counted  from  them  hath  taken  tithes  from  Abraham. 

In  this  the  Apostle  adduces  a  second  evidence  of  the  greatness 
proposed  for  consideration  ver.  4.  The  zat  continues  the  "  ac- 
cordingly "  expressed  by  the  foregoing  xat,  referring  to  T:rjXi-/.<)<i 
taken  causally.  He  is  so  great ;  accordiugly  Abraham  paid 
tithes  to  him  and  he  has  taken  tithes  of  Abraham,  without  such 
warrant  as  the  Levitical  priests  have  used  of  for  taking  tithes  of 
their  brethren.  We  understand  h.  rmv  o'mv  Aeu^i  to  be  used  par- 
titively/  just  as  the  foregoing  ix  r.  dxpoi9.  And  the  close  con- 
junction of  the  phrases  is  one  reason  for  construing  them  alike. 
Did  the  Apostle  mean  to  express  the  notion  of  priests  "  deriving 
their  priesthood  by  virtue  of  their  being  sons  of  Levi,"  ^  he 
would  not  choose  a  form  of  expressing  it  that,  like  the  present, 
with  its  proximity  to  the  foregoing  identical  construction,  is 
exposed,  by  attraction,  to  be  taken  in  the  same  partitive  sense. 

The  matter  of  construction  here  becomes  important  in  view 
of  recent  critical  views  of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
of  the  historical  genesis  of  the  Levitical  priesthood.  To  those 
who  maintain,  that  till  Ezra  there  was  no  distinction  between 
Levites  that  were  not  priests  and  Levites  that  were,  it  must  be  a 
welcome  interpretation  of  our  passage  that  makes  the  Apostle 
mean  "  priests  deriving  their  title  to  be  priests  from  their  being 
sous  of  Levi."  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  remain  an  insur- 
mountable obstacle  to  the  critical  view  referred  to,  that  the  Apos- 
tle, whose  reference  to  Jewish  institutions  is  exclusively  to  them 
as  they  stand  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch,  expressly  recognizes  a 
distinction  there  between  Levites  in  general  and  Levites  that 
were  priests. 

The  difficulties  suggested^  by  the  fact  that  it  was  the  Levites 
and  not  the  priests  that  took  tithes  of  their  brethren,  while  the 
tithes  of  the  priests  came  from  their  Levitical  brethren,  need  not 
exact  our  attention.     The  priests  were  supported  by  tithes  taken 

^  With  Liin.,  Alford,  de  Wette ;  against  Del.,  von  Hof. 

2  So  Del.,  von  Hof.  ^  Comp.  Del. 


Vll. 


5,  6  a.]  THE   TITHING   OF   THIS   PRIEST.  231 


of  the  rest  of  the  Israelites ;  and  we  see  a  sufficient  explanation 
for  only  the  priests  being  mentioned  in  the  present  connection, 
because  it  is  priests  and  priesthood  and  the  greatness  of  Christ's 
priesthood  that  are  considered. 

To  point  the  contrast  that  exhibits  the  greatness  of  This  One 
in  taking  tithes,  the  Apostle  describes  Levitical  tithing  in  a  man- 
ner to  expose  its  inferiority.  They  have  commandment  to  tithe 
the  people,  which  refers  their  title  to  take  tithes  to  a  command- 
ment/ without  which  they  could  no  more  take  tithes  than  others  ; 
and  limits  their  taking  tithes  to  the  people.  And  then  they 
could  only  lift  the  tithes  according  to  law  ;  for  we  connect  xard 
T.  vojiov  with  arLodsxarov^.^  By  this  they  were  limited  to  the  things 
specified.  Moreover,  the  tuv  Xa6v  is  defined  ;  they  are  their  own 
brethren ;  and  this  expression  is  further  emphasized  by  :  though 
these  have  come  out  of  the  loins  of  Abraham.  The  force  of  these 
expressions  has  been  variously  interpreted,  and  indeed  in  the 
most  opposite  ways.^  But  the  most  obvious  meaning  seems  to 
be,  that  the  Levites  took  tithes  under  circumstances  that  implied 
no  greatness  or  superiority  whatever,  inasmuch  as  those  of  whom 
they  took  tithes  were  their  own  brethren,  descended,  like  them- 
selves, from  Abraham,  which  descent  was  the  paramount  rela- 
tionship and  matter  of  consequence,  wherein  all  were  equals.* 

The  contrast  with  the  foregoing  (ver.  5)  that  illustrate  the 
greatness  of  This  One,  now  follows  (ver.  6  a).  The  point  of  the 
contrast  is  made  by  describing  this  subject  as  :  he  whose  gene- 
alogy is  not  counted  from  them,  viz.,  the  sons  of  Levi.  As  it  is 
commonly  understood  that  Melchizedek  is  the  subject  here,  so  it 
is  as  commonly  accepted  without  remark,  that  the  Apostle  notes 
the  obvious  fact  that  Melchizedek  was  not  descended  from  Levi 
in  order  to  point  his  conclusion.  But  where,  before  or  since, 
was  there  even  drawn  an  inference  from  the  fact  that  one  was  not 
descended  from  another  that  lived  centuries  after  his  own  time  ? 
And  how  can  a  notion  so  preposterous  be  introduced,  as  that  not 
being  descended  from  one  of  Abraham's  posterity  of  the  third  de- 
gree, and  much  further  if  we  take  Aaron,  could  have  any  signifi- 

1  Num.  xviii.  20-32 ;  Deut.  xiv.  22-29.  ^  With  Alford,  Del. 

^  See  in  Del.  *  C'oiiip.  Liiu. 


232  HIS  EIGHT  SUPEEIOR  [vii.  5,  6  a. 

cance  in  the  transaction  of  Melchizedek  with  Abraham  himself? 
Could  it  be  more  extraordinary  to  emphasize  the  fact,  that  Abra- 
ham was  not  the  offspring  of  his  own  great-grandson  ?  Such  a 
reference  can  only  be  thought  reasonable  as  a  mode  of  expressing 
that  Melchizedek,  who  took  tithes,  was  without  such  a  warrant  as 
that  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  determined,  as  the  latter  was,  by 
genealogical  relationship  to  a  tithe-taking  tribe.  It  is,  however, 
incomprehensible,  how  any  author,  much  more  how  one  so  skill- 
ful as  the  Author  of  our  epistle,  could  adopt  so  extraordinary  a 
fashion  of  expressing  that  idea,  or  any  idea  ;  unless  we  under- 
stand him  to  intend  the  sharpest  irony.  But  there  can  be  no 
suspicion  of  irony  here.  We  must  understand  tlie  Apostle  to  be 
speaking  of  a  subject  of  whom  it  would  be  reasonable,  and  not 
absurd,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  is  not  descended  from 
Levi.  That  subject  cannot  be  Melchizedek.  It  can  only  be 
Jesus  Himself.  The  words  under  consideration  are,  therefore, 
the  most*  convincing  evidence  of  what  has  already  been  assumed 
on  other  grounds,  viz.,  that  by  «5ro?  (ver.  4)  the  Apostle  means 
Jesus  and  no  other,  and  that  Jesus,  and  not  Melchizedek,  is  the 
reigning  subject  all  through  our  passage  (vers.  4-25).  Meaning, 
then,  Jesus  by  This  One,  the  Apostle  appropriately  notes  that, 
without  his  having  any  genealogical  relation  to  the  tithe-taking 
Levites,  he  has  taken  tithes  from  Abraham. 

The  most  surprising  part  of  this  statement,  viz.,  the  represen- 
tation that  Jes^is  has  taken  tithes  of  Abraham,  really  belongs  to 
ver.  4,  where  it  has  already  been  made.  The  point  of  the  pre- 
sent statement  is  something  additional.  But  we  have  left  the 
consideration  of  this  extraordinary  representation  to  the  present, 
because  only  here  it  comes  out  in  unmistakable  light.  Now  it 
appears  that  the  Apostle  is  not  stating  things  that  were  true  of 
Melchizedek,  leaving  the  reader  to  infer  corresponding  conse- 
quences with  reference  to  Jesus,  as  the  antitype.  He  affirms 
them  directly  of  Jesus  Himself.  It  needs  no  words  to  prove 
that  what  is  affirmed  directly  of  Jesus,  and  things  so  strange, 
much  more  forcibly  set  forth  his  greatness,  than  when  the  same 
are  applied  by  comparison  and  inference.  The  difference  is  as 
great  as  between  the  direct  shining  of  the  sun-light  and  that  light 


Vii.  5,  6  «.]        TO   THAT   OF    LEVITICAL    PRIESTS.  233 

as  seen  reflected  by  the  moon.  The  only  question  is :  can  the 
Apostle  so  speak  of  Jesus  f  We  do  not  know  that  the  question 
has  ever  been  considered.  The  universal  understanding  that 
only  Melchizedek  is  meant,  when  the  Apostle  says  :  This  One  has 
taken  tithes  of  Abraham,  seems  to  express  the  judgment  that  it 
cannot  be  affirmed  of  Jesus. 

In  reply  to  the  question  just  jii'oposed,  we  argue  first,  as  above, 
that  we  must  understand  the  Apostle  to  be  speaking  of  some  one 
of  whom  it  is  reasonable  to  notice  that  he  has  no  relationship  of 
genealogy  to  the  Levites.  Then  again,  as  has  also  been  already 
noticed,  the  perfect  5t(^=:/ATMA.t  =has  taken  tithes,  requires  a  subject 
that  exists.  And  this  reminds  us,  that,  if  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive how  Jesus  can  be  spoken  of  as  the  actor  in  a  transaction  so 
remote  as  Abraham's  day,  it  is  also  difficult  to  conceive  how 
Melchizedek  can  be  spoken  of  as  now  existing  (vers.  3,  8),  and 
his  action  ages  ago  be  expressed  by  the  perfect  tense,  when  sim- 
ultaneous action  of  others  is  expressed  by  the  aorist.  This 
difficulty  about  Melchizedek  is  precisely  the  great  embarrassment 
that  makes  our  chap,  vii,,  so  difficult  of  interpretation  and  so  cele- 
brated as  one  of  "  the  old  cruces  interprctum  '' '  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  Apostle,  however,  represents  Jesus  as  having  taken 
tithes  of  Abraham,  on  the  ground  of  his  being  declared  a  priest 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.  A  priest  after  the  order  of  the 
Levitical  priesthood,  was  not  only  such  in  character,  but  he  also 
did  what  Levitical  priests  did  when  their  order  was  instituted  by 
Moses,  e.  g.,  they  took  tithes  of  their  brethren.  A  priest  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedek  must  do  what  Melchizedek  did.  What 
Melchizedek  did  as  priest,  cannot  be  represented  otherwise  than 
as  in  vers.  1-3,  where  his  tithing  and  blessing  Abraham  are 
mentioned.  As  regards  priestly  performances  of  Melchizedek, 
only  two  things  are  mentioned  there,  viz.,  that  he  blessed  Abra- 
ham and  took  tithes  of  him.  The  meeting  Abraham  was  not 
one  of  them,  and  remains  expressed  by  the  aorist  (vers.  1,  10). 
The  circumstances  of  the  case,  therefore,  only  admit  of  represent- 
ing, that  a  priest,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  has  taken  tithes 

^  Comp.  Auberlen,  Melchizedek's  ewiges  Leben  u.  Priesterthum,  "  Stud  u. 
Krit,  1857  p.  453  sqq. 


234  HE   HAS   BLESSED   ABRAHAM.  [vii.  5,  G  «. 

of  Abraham,  and  has  blessed  Abraham  (ver.  6  b).  The  Levitical 
priests  of  any  period  from  Moses  to  the  destruction  of  the  Tem- 
ple, A.  D.  70,  could  prove  the  privilege  and  distinction  of  their 
order  by  pointing  to  their  actual  practice  of  taking  tithes.  And 
they  would  express  that  existing  practice  did  they  say :  "  we 
have  taken  tithes  of  our  brethren."  But  did  the  order  now 
claun  to  be  still  perpetuated  in  living  representatives,  and  did 
they  assert  their  privileges,  they  would  say  :  "  we  have  taken 
tithes  of  our  brethren,"  referring  to  what  was  true  as  actual  fact 
only  ages  ago.  Similarly,  the  Apostle,  in  asserting  the  great- 
ness of  Jesus  as  a  High  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek, 
may  say :  he  has  tithed  Abraham  and  he  has  blessed  Abraham. 
Nor  can  we  conceive  in  what  other  way  he  could  represent  the 
distinction  and  peculiarity  of  a  priesthood  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,  consistently  with  representing  that  the  order  still  exists, 
and  has  its  rights  in  force.  To  say  of  the  Levitical  order  of 
priests :  "  they  took  tithes  of  their  brethren,"  implies  that  the 
order  is  a  thing  of  the  past ;  and  one  claiming  to  be  of  that  order 
now,  with  none  of  its  privileges  in  force,  would  be  but  a  shadow 
of  what  the  order  once  was.  And  similarly,  did  the  Apostle 
only  represent  in  our  vers.  4-10  what  was  true  of  Melchizedek, 
and  not  true  of  Jesus,  but  only  imaging  what  Jesus  would  be,  he 
would  be  leaving  Jesus,  with  his  claim,  to  be  of  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,  only  the  shadow  of  what  that  priest  of  God  Most 
High  really  was. 

The  Apostle  appropriately  says,  then,  This  One,  meaning  this 
Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  has  taken  tithes  of  Abra- 
ham without  needing  such  a  warrant  for  tithing  as  if  he  counted 
his  genealogy  from  the  Levites.  And  the  items  included  in  this 
contrast  are,  that  he  has  his  warrant  neither  by  virtue  of  descent, 
nor  on  the  ground  of  commandment,  nor  limited  by  prescription 
of  law  for  the  case.  It  is  on  the  ground  of  his  personal  emi- 
nence, and  it  is,  as  ver.  4  says,  from  the  chief  and  choice  portions 
of  the  spoils  that  the  tenth  has  been  given  to  him.  Moreover, 
he  has  tithed  Abraham,  who  stood  in  no  relation  to  him  but  that 
of  one  that  recognized  his  eminence. 

Continuing  with  xat  =  and,  which  has  the  same  force  as  that 


Vii.  G  6.]  THE    IMPORT    OF    THAT.  235 

of  the  two  preoediug  aud  coutiuues  it,  the  Apostle  adds,  a  third 
cousideratiou. 

Ver,  G  b.  And  [he]  hath  blessed  him  that  hath  the  promises. 
7.  Now  without  any  dispute  the  less  is  blessed  by  the  better. 

"  It  is  uot  easy  to  understand  why  6  h  has  been  commonly 
connected  with  what  precedes,  aud  uot  wuth  ver.  7.  ...  It  is 
quite  iu  place  to  designate  Abraham  particularly  as  the  possessor 
of  the  promises,  that  is  of  the  sum  total  of  all  that  promises 
salvation,  where  it  concerns  blessing  him,  and  not  where  it  con- 
cerns taking  tithes  of  him.  As  possessor  of  the  promises,  he  is 
the  one  blessed  of  God  iu  the  fullest  sense.  Is  This  One,  with 
his  tithing  Abraham,  superior  to  the  order  of  things  created  by 
the  law,  so  too,  by  blessing  Abraham,  he  is  superior  to  the  salva- 
tion comprised  in  promise."  ^  The  self-evidential  appeal  in 
proof  of  This  One  being  the  better  who  blesses  (ver.  7),  cannot 
be  made  more  forcible  by  connueuf.  But  it  is  to  be  noted,  that 
now  the  Apostle  says  :  the  better,  and  uot :  the  greater.  Not 
that  a  diiferent  notion  is  thereby  expressed,  but,  while  expressing 
that  This  One  is  greater  than  Abraham,  it  resumes  the  notion  of 
betterness  already  presented  (vi.  9 ;  i.  4),  and  involves,  as  we 
have  seen  at  1,  4,  the  thought  of  "  better  for  you,  or  for  us." 

And  now  follows  a  fourth  consideration  : 

Ver.  8.  And  here  indeed  men  that  die  receive  tithes ;  but  there 
[one  of  whom  it  is]  testified  that  he  liveth. 

The  here  and  there  are  used  with  reference  to  the  temporal 
nearness  and  remoteness  of  the  things  spoken  of.  The  Leviti- 
cal  tithing  is  near  to  the  Author ;  the  transaction  with  Abraham 
remote.  What  is  now  said,  passing  from  Abraham,  introduces  a 
direct  contrast  with  the  Levitical  priesthood  to  show  how  great 
This  One  is  compared  with  that.  The  Levitical  priesthood  was 
perpetuated  through  a  succession  of  dying  men.  And  both: 
men,  and  :  that  die  are  emphatic.^  The  idea  is,  that  they  receive 
tithes  only  as  members  for  i\\Q  time  of  their  order,  with  no  other 
title  to  do  so  than  what  passes  from  one  to  the  other.^  This  is 
an  idea  relative  to  the  Levitical  priesthood  that  recurs  later  with 

'von  Hof.,  exchanging  his  Melchizedek  as  subject,  for  "This  One." 
^Alford.  Hon  Hof. 


236  PRIESTS    DIE  ;     HE    LIVES.  [vii.  8. 

reference  to  sacrifices/  But  uow  it  is  mentioned  with  reference  to 
tithing,  because  that  subject  is  present  and  belongs  to  what  con- 
cerns tfie  merit  of  the  order  in  itself.  When  sacrifices  come  to 
be  spoken  of,  it  will  concern  the  importance  and  benefit  of  the 
order  to  others  for  whom  they  make  sacrifices.  In  contrast  with  the 
case  of  these  mortal  functionaries,  the  Apostle  places  This  One,  and 
the  fact  that  he  liveth.  He  says  :  he  is  attested  that  He  lives, 
and  he  means  the  testimony  of  Ps.  ex.  That  is  his  text ;  and 
no  where  else  is  there  testimony  of  the  sort  connected  with  the 
notion  of  Melchizedek.  To  the  objection^  that  Melchizedek 
"  does  not  now  take  tithes,"  and  that,  therefore,  we  must  look  to 
Gen.  xiv.  for  this  witness,  we  can  reply  that  the  Apostle  says 
of  This  One :  "  he  has  taken  tithes  of  Abraham,"  and  he  has 
nothing  else  in  mind ;  and  This  One  does  not  mean  the  historical 
Melchizedek.  The  present  notion  is,  that  he  lives,  and  his  order  is 
perpetuated  in  himself  and  because  he  lives.  It  is  not  something 
to  be  conceived  of  as  distinct  from  himself.  The  superiority 
both  of  person  and  order  to  the  Levitical  priesthood  so  brought 
out  in  relief  is  so  evident  as  to  need  no  amplification.  Yet  it  is 
only  so  when  we  understand  that :  "  now  liveth,"  is  affirmed 
only  of  Jesus,  and  not  of  Melchizedek.  Were  there  another 
that  lives  forever,  he  would  share  the  distinction  with  Jesus,  and 
to  that  extent  diminish  the  force  there  would  be  in  such  a  fact 
when  affirmed  of  one  alone.  Not  because  two  priests  would 
come  in  conflict.^  But  because  what  is  pointed  to  as  a  mark  of 
pre-eminence  and  distinction  ceases  to  be  such  when  said  of  more 
than  Jesus.  But  there  is  only  one  testimony  that  he  lives.  It  is 
Ps.  ex.,  and  that  testifies  this  only  of  Christ  and  no  other.  In 
what  is  now  presented,  the  Apostle  gives  application  to  that  item 
of  the  elements,  vers.  1-3,  that  states :  "  he  remaineth  a  priest 
forever."  He  presses  it  to  show  the  superiority  of  Jesus  to  Levi- 
tical priests. 

To  the  same  effect  he  adds  yet  another  and  the  fifth  consid- 
eration : 

Ver.  9.     And,  so  to  speak,  through  Abraham,  Levi,  also,  who 

'  Vers.  23-25.  ^  Of  von  Hof. 

^  Alford ;  comp.  de  Wette  and  Lindsay  on  ver.  3. 


vii.  9,  10.]  LEVI    HIMSELF   TITHED    TO    HIM.  237 

receiveth  tithes  has  been  tithed ;  10.  for  he  was  yet  in  the  loins  of 
his  father  when  Melchizedek  met  him. 

The  raeaniiig  of  tliis  is  plain  enough.  But  it  is  obviously  an 
unusual  thing  to  say,  though  legitimate  reasoning  in  a  matter 
like  the  present,  that  concerns,  not  the  moral  quality  and  conse- 
quences of  the  action  referred  to,  but  only  its  significance  as  to 
comparative  greatness.  Superiority  to  Abraham  involved  super- 
iority to  all  descended  from  him.  There  is  a  vigor  and  striking 
effect  in  the  form  of  presenting  this  notion  that  escapes  analysis. 
It  brings  the  Levitical  priesthood  into  direct  relation  with  the 
action  and  the  significance  of  Abraham's  paying  tithes.  "  Jesus 
has  tithed  the  Levitical  priesthood,"  presents  a  notion  that  leaves 
the  latter  in  unmistakable  inferiority.  Yet,  as  something  strained, 
and  not  to  be  pressed  to  other  consequences,  the  Author  qualifies 
the  expression  by  a :  so  to  speak.  We  may  note  that  this : 
so  to  speak  shows  the  fine  sense  of  propriety  of  the  Author ;  and 
w^e  may  reflect  that  it  justifies  us  in  refusing,  as  above,  to  under- 
stand ver.  6,  as  if  he  emphasized  the  notion  that  Melchizedek 
was  not  descended  from  Levites.  Such  a  notion,  if  presented 
for  any  purpose  whatever,  must  surely  call  for  an  w?  k'm><^  eiTzslv, 
or  the  like,  much  more  than  the  representation  of  our  ver.  10. 
As  already  remarked,  the  mention  of  Melchizedek  with  an 
aorist  predicate  (ore  fru'^rjvrrjfTsv  aijTui  MsX-/.)  denotes  that  the  his- 
torical Melchizedek  is  treated  as  a  different  subject  from  This  One 
which  is  the  active  subject  (ver.  9)  of  the  passive  perfect 
dsihyAriuTat.  We  take  it,  moreover,  as  additional  confirmation  of 
our  view  (viz.,  that  the  Author  means  Jesus  where  he  seems  to 
speak  of  Melchizedek),  that  in  our  vers.  9,  10,  he  means  the 
Levitical  order  when  he  names  Levi.  For  ylsyr'i?  6  dzxarag 
}.a/j./3dvojv  means  the  order  that  according  to  the  law  has  and  uses 
the  prerogative  of  tithing.  He  means  the  Levites  in  general, 
and  these  he  calls  Levi. 

The  Apostle  has  now  handled  the  elements  enumerated  in 
vers.  1-3,  to  show  the  superiority  of  Jesus,  the  Melchizedekian 
Priest ;  and  he  has  shown  him  to  be  greater  and  better  in  five 
'partiiyidars}     (1 .)  Greater  than  Abraham  because  he  has  tithed 

'  So  von  Ilof. 


238  KESUME  OF  VII.    1-10.  [vii.  11. 

Abraham  (ver.  4) ;  (2.)  greater  than  the  Ijevitical  priesthood  in 
that  he  took  tithes  without  needing  the  warrant  they  had  (ver. 
5,  6  a).  (3.)  Better  than  Abraham  because  he  has  blessed  Abra- 
ham (vers.  6  6,  7).  (4.)  Better  than  the  Levitical  priesthood 
because  he  lives  forever  (ver.  8) ;  and  (5,)  because  they  are 
involved  in  the  inferiority  confessed  by  Abraham  when  he  paid 
tithes.  All  this  concerns  the  greatness  (jnjXtxog  o5ro?)  of  This  One 
considered  in  himself,  and  as  contrasted  with  the  priesthood  to 
whom  Jewishly  inclined  persons  were  giving  precedence  as  means 
of  access  to  God  and  as  the  ground  of  acceptability  with  God. 

Taking,  now,  the  points  gained,  along  with  the  elements  (vers. 
1-3)  from  which  he  is  reasoning,  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  press 
further  consequences  of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  matter  of 
salvation ;  and  now  we  observe,  as  a  mark  of  the  progress  of 
thought,  that  these  concern  the  greatness  of  This  One  considered 
with  reference  to  those  who  need  priestly  mediation. 

Yer.  11.  If  then,  indeed,  there  was  perfection  by  means  of  the 
Levitical  priesthood  (for  under  it  hath  the  people  received  law), 
what  further  need  for  a  different  priest  to  be  raised  up  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedek  and  not  called  after  the  order  of  Aaron  ? 

This  touches  the  vital  matter  of  salvation.  For  T£Xe{w(Tt?  = 
perfection  means  the  goal  of  a  perfect  relation  to  God ;  ^  and  it  is 
assumed  that  this  is  to  be  attained  only  through  the  mediation 
of  priestly  acts.  It  is  not  the  Apostle's  purpose  here  to  prove 
that  the  law  and  the  priesthood  could  make  nothing  perfect.^ 
He  deals  with  this  topic  x.  1  sqq.  Here  he  assails  these  directly 
with  inferences  founded  on  the  elements  enumerated  above,  taken 
with  the  conclusions  of  vers.  4—10,  relating  to  the  comparative 
greatness  of  Jesus.  He  assumes  that  perfection  is  what  those 
seek  who  look  to  law  and  offerings  and  priests.  The  ability  to 
make  perfect  is  then  the  test  of  the  adequacy  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood.  Whatever  is  adequate  for  a  purpose,  God  has  made 
so.  And  what  He  has  made  so  He  will  not  supersede  by 
another  agent.  He  will  not  even  set  up  a  competing  agent.^  If 
then  God  appoints  another  priest,  of  a  different  order  from  those 

^  X.  1,  14 ;  von  Hof.  ^  Against  von  Hof. 

^;fpe/a,  necessitas. — Nam  Deus  nil  facit  frustra.     Bengel. 


vii.  11.]         WHY    A    DIFFERENT    PRIEST   IS    NEEDED.  239 

existing,  it  is  evidence  that  the  existing  priesthood  was  not 
intended  to  give  salvation.  The  .appointment  of  another  order 
of  priest  is  proof  that  there  was  need  for  it.  The  need  appears 
in  this,  viz.,  tliat  perfection  must  come  through  priestly  mediation, 
and  the  existing  priesthood  did  not  mediate  perfection. 

The  «5>  =  then,  continues  the  discourse  inferentially  with  refer- 
ence to  the  matters  already  presented  vers.  1-10.  Theec'^if, 
introduces  hypothetically  the  notion  of  the  Levitical  priesthood 
being  the  means  of  perfection,  by  which  is  intimated,  that  not 
this  notion  is  to  be  considered,  but  another.  Therefore,  as  said 
above,  it  is  not  the  topic  here  to  prove  that  the  law  and  the 
Levitical  priesthood  could  make  nothing  perfect.  The  other 
notion  and  actual  topic  is,  that  the  Levitical  priesthood  would 
suffice,  and  there  would  be  no  need  for  another  order  of  priest. 
Yet  there  is  another  order  raised  up ;  and  the  question  arises : 
what  need  of  it  ?  The  need  appears  in  what  is  actually  the 
effect  of  it.  This  effect  the  Apostle  represents  here.  To  the 
mention  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  as  related  to  perfection,  ^the 
Apostle  adds  a  parenthesis  :  or  under  it  (/.  c,  this  priesthood) 
the  people  received  law.  He  adds  this  because  the  notion  of 
perfection  postulates  law  which  is  the  criterion  of  the  perfection. 
With  the  Levitical  priesthood  there  was  a  corresponding  law. 
The  ^-' afjr^?  rounder  it,  is  to  be  taken  temporally,^  as  we  say: 
under  King  William  III.  With  the  institution  of  the  Leviti- 
cal order  a  corresponding  law  was  given  to  the  people  whose 
priests  they  were,  and- the  priestly  order  itself  had  continuance 
by  giving  effect  to  that  law.  It  is  not  the  law  of  INIoses  that  is 
meant  here,  nor  yet  is  it  a  different  law ;  ^  but  it  is  the  law  for 
the  people  involved  in  the  institution  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,^ 
according  to  whose  prescriptions  the  people  must  seek  the  media- 
tion of  the  priesthood,  and  the  priesthood  must  act  as  their  media- 
tors. The  priesthood  and  the  corresponding  law  are,  then, 
inseparable  notions.  And  as  they  are  conjoined  here,  so  the 
Apostle  continues,  in  the  following  context,  to  treat  both  as 
equally  involved  in  the  consequences  attending  the  raising  up 

'  See  Passow  Lex.,  s.  v.,  I.  3.  ^  von  Ilof.,  conip.  ver.  19. 

'  Against  Liin.,  Alford,  Del. 


240  THE    LAW   ALSO   CHANGED.  [vii.  12. 

of  another  order  of  priesthood.  In  the  case  thus  put  hypotlie- 
tieally,  the  Apostle  asks  :  what  need  still  for  a  different  (lr;/joy) 
priest  to  be  raised  up  {fhirrraafiat  passive,  not  middle)  ^  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedek,  and  called  not  after  the  order  of  Aaron? 
The  00  connects  with  /.ara  r.  -d^iv  A.^  as  what  is  expressed  is, 
that  by  naming  him  after  Melchizedek  it  is  meant  he  is  declared 
not  to  be  an  Aaronic  priest.  The  anaraanat.  is  to  be  taken  pas- 
sively because  it  is  important  here,  as  before,^  that  this  priest  is 
raised  up  as  such  by  God's  act  declared  Ps.  ex.,  and  not  that  he 
arises  of  himself.  What  God  wills  is  fundamental  in  all  this 
argument.  And  so  the  question  is  contemplated  in  the  light  of 
the  past  when  God  spake  in  Ps,  ex.  The  r^^  -  was  expresses  :  if 
there  was  then  perfection  by  the  Aaronic  priesthood. 

In  justification  of  the  question  now  proposed,  the  Apostle 
expresses  what  is  involved  in  instituting  another  order  of  priest- 
hood. 

Ver  12.  For  if  the  priesthood  is  changed,  there  takes  place 
also  a  change  of  law. 

Thus  we  translate  //srarn^e/j'ivrj?  r.  hpu}abvTj<i^  to  avoid  giving 
the  impression  that  the  Author  speaks  of  a  past  transaction,  as 
the  rendering  :  "  the  priesthood  being  changed  "  ^  would  do.  He 
is  stating  a  universal  proposition.  And  the  first  clause  implies 
the  unexpressed  affirmation,  that  raising  up  another  order  of 
priest  expressly  called  not  Aaronic,  is  a  change  of  priesthood. 
Thus  it  connects  by  for  with  ver.  11.  The  mention  of  law  here 
connects  with  the  parenthesis  of  ver.  11,  and  the  affirmation  of 
our  verse  is  on  the  ground  of  the  close  relation  of  the  priesthood 
and  law  there  noticed.^  The  Apostle  speaks  here  of  change, 
whereas  at  ver.  18,  he  comes  out  with  the  more  sweeping  state- 
ment of  "  abrogation  "  =  a.9fr55<7r9.  There  seems  in  this  an 
intentional  mildness  of  expression,'^  as  if  to  let  the  truth  grow  on 
the  readers,  and  not  to  alarm  them  by  precipitating  all  of  the 

'With  von  Hof.,  comp.  Acts  iii.  22;  vii.  37;  xiii.  32,  against  e.  g.,  Bleek, 
de  Wette,  Liin.,  Eng.  Verss.  1611;  1881. 

2  von  Hof.,  Liin.,  Alf  ird.  »  v.  5,  6.  *  With  Alford. 

*  E.  Version,  1611  and  1881.  *  So  Liin.,  AKord,  against  Del. 

^  Liin.,  Alford. 


vii.  13,  14.]     JESUS  OF  the  tribe  of  judaii.  241 

conclusion.  Yet  stated  as  in  our  verse,  the  trutli  is  radical  and 
revolutionary.  But  it  is  axiomatic.  The  only  question  tliat  can 
arise  is,  whether  there  is  actually  a  change  in  the  priesthood. 
The  Apostle,  accordingly,  having  intimated  that  there  is,  proceeds 
to  fortify  the  statement.  Speaking  from  his  Psalm  text  ex.  4,  as 
God's  declaration  concerning  Christ,  and  assuming  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ,  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  give  additional  proof  that 
making  hhn  priest  changes  the  priesthood,  beside  the  proof  found 
in  His  beinff  called  after  Melchizedek  and  not  after  Aaron.  This 
proof  apjicars  in  what  are  the  facts  concerning  Jesus  himself. 

Ver.  13.  For  he  of  whom  these  things  are  said,  hath  par- 
taken of  a  different  tribe,  from  which  no  one  hath  given  attend- 
ance at  the  altar.  14.  For  it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  hath  sprung 
out  of  Judah,  with  reference  to  which  tribe  Moses  said  nothing 
concerning  priests. 

The  For  does  not  connect  with  verse  12  to  adduce  proof  that 
there  is  a  change  of  law.^  What  is  stated  as  a  necessary  effect 
(f  ?  d.vdyx-q^)  needs  no  proof.  For  refers  to  the  unexpressed  affirm- 
ation implied  in  the  premise :  "  if  the  priesthood  is  changed  " 
(ver.  12),  which,  connected  by  "  for"  with  the  mention  (ver.  11) 
of  "  a  different  priest  not  called  Aaronic,"  expresses  the  full 
import  of  that  fact. 

By  :  are  said,  ver.  13,  reference  is  had  to  Ps.  ex.,  which  is  the 
Apostle's  text.  By  Tobra  =  these  things,  is  meant  the  saying 
"thou  art  a  priest,"  etc.,  as  the  notion  Melchizedek  has  been 
amplified  in  vers.  1-3.  The  :  different  tribe,  means  other  than 
the  tribe  of  Levi.  Nothing  can  make  the  statements  of  our 
verses  plainer  than  they  appear  there. 

But  we  may  pause  to  remark  ^  that  ver.  14  shows  that  no 
perplexity  was  experienced  at  the  time  of  this  writing  about  the 
genealogy  of  Jesus ;  and  such  authority  as  the  Author  abund- 
antly compensates  for  weakness  that  appears  in  the  chain  of  evi- 
dence we  now  have  that  He  was  descended  as  was  claimed. 
Rem  olim  liquidam  fuisse,  et  constat  et  sriffidt.  The  Author, 
indeed,  assumes  only  that  Jesus  was  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
because  that  is  precisely  what  is  important  to  his  argument.   But 

*  Against  Liin.,  Alford,  Davidson.  *  With  Bengel. 

16 


242  OUR  LORD.  [vii.  15,  16. 

the  claim  that  Jesus  descended  from  David  was  made  as  promi- 
nent and  as  important  as  that  he  descended  from  Judali.  In  the 
first  preaching  of  the  gospel  the  two  were  so  combined,  with  such 
special  stress  on  the  Davidic  descent  of  Jesus,  that  such  a  refer- 
ence as  ver.  14,  to  one  part  of  the  current  behef  of  Christians  at 
that  time  involves  the  acceptance  of  the  other. 

The  Apostle  uses  the  expression :  our  Lord,  on  which  it  is 
worth  remarking,  that  this  is  the  only  place  in  scrijjture  where 
Christ  is  so  called  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  15,  being  hardly  an  exception.^ 

It  confirms  our  construction  of  the  foregoing  context  from  ver. 
4  (in  which  we  regard  Jesus,  the  Melchizedekian  priest,  as  the 
direct  subject  of  all  that  seems  to  others  to  be  said  of  Melchize- 
dek  himself),  that  here  and  onwards  to  ver.  25,  Jesus  is  expressed 
as  the  subject.  This  occurs :  (a)  without  anything  to  note  a 
change  of  subject,  but  only  as  our  Author  must  name  it,  and 
not  leave  it  too  long  unnamed,  and,  as  here,  sustained  only  by  a 
demonstrative  pronoun  (ouro?) ;  and  (6)  with  no  change  in  the 
nature  of  the  things  afiirmed  of  the  subject,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
Avith  reiteration  of  identical  notions,  as  in  vers.  15,  16,  and  23, 
24 ;  comp.  vers.  3,  8. 

Ver.  1 5.  And  it  (i.  e.,  what  we  say)  is  yet  more  abundantly  evi- 
dent, if  after  the  likeness  of  Melchizedek  there  is  raised  up  a  dif- 
ferent priest,  16.  Who  has  become  [priest]  not  according  to  a  law 
of  a  carnal  commandment,  but  according  to  a  power  of  an  endless 
life. 

We  have  noted  at  ver.  12  that  the  Apostle  has  stated  an 
axiomatic  proposition,  the  only  debatable  term  of  which  is, 
whether  there  is  really  a  change  of  the  priesthood.  In  support 
of  this  premise,  as  the  notion  has  been  intimated  or  assumed  in 
the  hypothetical  clause  of  ver  12,  he  has  adduced  the  statement  of 
vers.  13,  14.  He  adduces  further  support  of  this  in  our  verses 
15,16.  What  he  means  as  being  more  abundantly  evident  is 
the  change  of  priesthood  which  needs  proof,  and  not  that  the  law 
is  changed,^  which,  as  has  been  noted,  needs  no  proof,  but  is 
affirmed  to  be  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  former.     Yet  owing 

'  Alford ;  but  comp.  rbv  Kvptov  fifiuv  'Irjcovv  xiii.  20,  and  ii.  3 ;  xii.  14. 
^  Against  Lun.,  Alford,  Davidson ;  with  Stuart. 


vii.  15,  16.]  aviarazai.  243 

to  the  identity  of  the  two  notions  already  expressed,  a  main  point 
of  the  argument  is,  that  the  law,  as  well  as  the  priesthood,  is 
changed,  which  is  established  by  establishing  that  there  is  a 
change  of  priesthood.  God's  raising  up  {/vAffrarat  is  to  be  taken 
as  passive  and  not  middle,  for  the  same  reasons  given  ver.  11, 
regarding  dviazaaliat)  a  priest  of  a  difierent  order,  and  the  priest 
being  accordingly  taken  from  a  different  tril)e  (as  vers.  13,  14), 
are  evidence  of  God's  changing  the  priesthood.  This  is  still 
more  evident  if  this  different  priest  remains  forever  a  priest; 
obviously  because  the  order  is  thus  perpetuated  with  all  that 
makes  it  different  and  distinct.  Being  thus  instituted  by  God, 
he  means  that  his  people  shall  look  to  this  priest,  and  not  to  the 
existing  priesthood.  Such  is  the  argument.  In  the  Apostle's 
statement  of  it,  his  mention  of  a  different  priest  resumes  the 
notion  established  vers.  13,  14,  to  add  another  trait  of  this  priest. 
The  representations  of  our  present  verses  are  not  meant  to 
explain  the  notion :  different.^  And,  similarly  :  after  the  likeness 
of  Melchizedek,  resu)nes  the  idea  already  expressed  or  rather 
expressly  assumed  ver.  11,  and  is  therefore  not  expressed  for  the 
purpose  of  having  the  likeness  defined  by  ver  16.^  The  Author, 
then,  in  the  expression  :  if  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  a  differ- 
ent priest,^  resumes  the  two  essential  facts  already  established, 
and  in  the  order  of  their  previous  mention,  to  add  another  and 
crowning  one  in  the  present  argument,  and  so  presents  all 
together  as  convincingly  evidential  (xardSriXav)  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  change  of  priesthood.  The  additional  statement :  who 
has  become  a  priest,  etc.,  is  made  on  the  authority  of  the  Psalm 
text,  as  the  citing  of  it,  ver.  17  shows.  It  is  substantially,  that 
Jesus,  this  different  priest,  remains  forever.  But  this  is  expressed 
in  a  way  to  point  the  contrast  with  the  changeable  Aaronic 
priesthood.  He  has  become  priest  not  according  to  a  law  of  a  car- 
nal commandment,  and  thereby  is  intimated  that  the  Aaronic 
priests  did  so  become  priests,  which  explains  their  being  change- 
able, i.  e.,  that  tliey  were  not  intended  to  be  a  perpetual  order. 
By  law,  without  the  article  we  must  understand  the  same  as  in 

^  Against  Lun,,  etc.        ^  Against  Del.,  von  Ilof.        ^  Comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  32. 


244  A  THREEFOLD   CONTRAST.  [vii.  15,  16. 

ver.  11.  Defined  as :  of  a  carnal  commandment  (^i^roA^?  aa-p/.i^-qif 
aud  limited  to  ordinances  instituting  and  regulating  the  Aaronic 
priesthood,  etc.,  according  to  the  antithesis  presented  by  the  fol- 
lowing clause,  this  law  concerned  things  of  flesh.  The  men  it 
made  priests,  with  all  that  they  became,  and  performed  by  such 
law,  were  left  in  the  natural  state  of  changeable  and  perishable 
life.  As  such  they  might  be  expected  to  pass  away.  This  ''  dif- 
ferent priest,"  on  the  contrary,  became  such  according  to  power 
of  indissoluble  life.  Not  by  law  at  all,  therefore;  but  by  power 
and  according  to  life,  and  a  life  that  is  described  as  indissoluble, 
not  subject  to  change  or  death,  as  flesh  is. 

It  may  even  be  doing  more  justice  to  the  Apostle's  thought 
to  understand  ^  that  he  points  a  threefold  contrast,  viz.,  of  law 
and  power,  commandment  and  life,  carnal  and  indissoluble.  The 
Aaronic  priesthood  was  instituted  by  law :  this  other  Priest  by 
power.  And,  for  explanation  of  what  is  meant,  we  may  take 
V.  5,  6,  which  represents  how  Christ  was  made  priest  by  the  im- 
mediate ^ai  of  God.  The  Aaronic  priesthood  manifested  itself 
and  was  operative  by  means  of  commandments,  which  it  kept 
and  gave  to  the  people  ;  this  other  Priesthood  manifested  itself 
in  life,  which  Christ  has  in  Himself  and  gives  to  His  people.^ 
The  commandment  with  which  the  Aaronic  priesthood  was 
identified,  "  belonged  to  that  preliminary  pedagogic  stage  that 
was  not  yet  concerned  with  implanting  a  spiritual  life  in  man- 
kind dead  through  sin,  but  dealt  only  wnth  the  outward  limits  of 
sin  and  types  of  salvation  for  natural  and  fleshly  men.  (This  is 
the  meaning  aapy.ix6<i  Gal.  iii.  3).  The  life  [of  this  other  Priest] 
is  made  indissoluble,  i.  e.,  it  has  in  it  the  forces  of  eternity."  * 

The  opinion  is  maintained,  that  the  Apostle  affirms  this  indis- 
soluble life  of  Jesus  only  as  exalted  after  death  to  be  a  High  Priest 
forever.  And  von  Hofmann  expressly  appeals  to  the  fact  that, 
while  in  the  flesh,  Jesus  was  subject  to  change  and  death  as  other 
men,  and  accordingly  died.     But  to  this  consideration  just  named, 

'  Instead  of  capKCKfj^  of  the  Recept. ;  so  all  the  editions ;  Liin.,  von  Hof., 
Alford. 

"  With  Ebrard,  who  appeals  to  Carpzov,  Kuinoel. 

'  Comp.  John  v.  21,  26  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  45.  *  Ebrard ;  against  Del. 


vii.  17.]  THE  ARGUMENT  VII.  4-18.  245 

it  may  be  opposed,  that  Apostolic  preaching  claimed  for  Jesus  a 
life  that  made  it  impossible  for  Him  to  be  holden  of  death.* 
And  from  our  context,  we  observe  that  the  Apostle  speaks  of 
Jesus  as  descended  from  Judah,  and  as  such,  with  this  evidence 
on  him  of  being  a  different  priest  from  those  descended  from 
Levi,  he  describes  him  as  having  become  priest  according  to 
power  of  indissoluble  life.  Did  he  mean  that  He  was  such  a 
priest,  not  as  Jesus  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  but  only  in  respect  to 
His  exhaltation  to  heaven,  it  would  need  to  be  expressed  here. 
We  maintain,  therefore,  as  has  always  been  understood,  that  the 
Apostle  means  here  "  the  life  of  Christ  in  general ;  he  had  the 
power  of  imperishable  life  in  Himself  from  the  beginning, 
althoug-h  it  was  not  till  His  resurrection  that  this  was  revealed."  ^ 

In  proof  of  the  important  statement  he  has  just  made,  the 
Apostle  once  more  quotes  his  Psalm  text. 

Ver.  17.  For  it  is  testified  that  Thou  art  priest  forever  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

The  emphasis  is  on  forever  and  on  that  alone. 

The  Apostle,  having  represented  the  comparative  greatness  of 
the  Melchizedek  Priest  (vers.  4-10),  by  reference  to  the  elements 
enumerated  vers.  1-3,  has  now  (vers.  11-1 7),  we  observe,  pressed 
the  fact,  also  intimated  vers.  3,  4,  that  this  is  a  different  order  of 
priesthood  from  the  Aaronic.  A  different  order  means  a  change 
of  priesthood,  and  a  change  of  priesthood  means  a  change  of  law 
pertaining  to  such  an  institution.  The  change  of  priesthood  can 
be  the  only  doubtful  thing.  He  has,  therefore,  directed  his  dis- 
course to  that.  Everything  that  shows  it  to  be  different  is  proof 
that  there  has  been  such  a  change.  He  has  pointed  to  three 
marks :  («)  it  is  called  by  a  different  name ;  (b)  the  Priest  is 
from  another  tribe  than  Levi ;  (c)  he  is  a  Priest  that  remains 
forever.  The  priesthood  has,  then,  been  changed  by  that  divine 
word  of  Ps.  ex.  Consequently,  the  law  concerning  priests,  and 
concerning  the  people  who  need  their  mediation,  is  changed. 

The  Apostle  introduced  this  part  of  the  subject  by  asking : 

^  Acts  ii.  24 ;  John  x.  15-18.     And  see  below  xiii.  20,  and  von  lloimann's 
comment. 
*  Eiehm  p.  458,  Anmerk ;  and  Liin.,  Lindsay. 


246  THE   INEFFECTIVE    LAW    ABROGATED.       [vii.  18,  19. 

what  need  is  there  for  such  a  change  of  priesthood,  if  the  Levit- 
ical  could  be  the  means  of  perfection  ?  This  intimates  that  there 
was  need  for  the  change,  viz.,  in  the  essential  matter  of  coming 
to  enjoy  a  perfect  relation  toward  God.  It  was  not  to  glorify 
God  by  two  orders  of  priests  instead  of  one.  It  was  instituting  a 
Priest  to  do  what  the  other  order  could  not  do.  With  ver.  17, 
the  Apostle  has  finished  the  proof  that  there  has  been  raised  up  a 
totally  different  order  of  Priest,  and  that  thus  the  priesthood  has 
been  changed.  He  now  proceeds  to  represent  the  consequence 
already  expressed,  viz.,  that  there  is  a  change  of  law,  and  that 
this  is  in  order  to  secure  the  perfection  that  made  another  order 
than  the  Levitical  priesthood  necessary. 

Ver.  18.  For,  indeed,  an  abrogation  takes  place  of  a  fore- 
going commandment  because  of  its  weakness  and  unprofitableness 
19.  (for  the  law  perfected  nothing),  but  a  bringing  in  thereupon  of  a 
better  hope  [takes  place]  through  which  we  draw  near  to  God. 

In  the  present  statement  of  the  notion  already  expressed  ver. 
12,  the  Apostle  gives  it  as  an  ascertained  conclusion,  and  now 
expresses  it  in  its  whole  extent.  The  commandment  involved  in 
the  Aaronic  priesthood  is  changed  to  the  extent  of  abrogation. 
For  such  is  the  meaning  of  d'^TTjfft?  =  "  abolition."  ^  He  calls  the 
commandment :  a  foregoing  commandment,  /.  e.,  antecedent  to  "the 
word  of  the  oath,"  ^  and  thus  intimates  that  it  was  in  its  intention 
only  provisional.  He  says,  moreover,  it  was  weak  and  profitless, 
and  thus  explains  how  it  could  only  be  provisional.  Unprofitable 
expresses  its  relation  to  those  for  whom  it  was  a  commandment, 
viz.,  the  people,  and  in  the  present  connection  the  sense  is :  it  is 
unprofitable  to  mediate  perfection,^  vii.  18,  19,  f.  e.,  to  save.* 
"Our  ver.  18  is  not  a  general  statement,  but  declares  what  hap- 
pens when  the  Melchizedek  Priest  is  raised  up.  Thus  the  em- 
phasis rests  on  that  fact,  and  not  the  explanation :  dul  rd  adzTj^ 
d(T&svh  X.  dvoj<J>£Xig,  where  the  neuter  adjective  is  used  instead  of 
the  abstract  substantive,  because  it  is  not  so  much  a  quality  of 
the  commandment  that  is  mentioned,  as  the  actual  fact,  that  it 
was  weak  and  profitless,  and  inasmuch  as  it  was  so."  ^     In  jus- 

•"  Grimm.,  Lex..  Alford.  ^  comp.  ver.  28.  "      ^  ver.  11. 

*  ver.  25.  s  ^qq  g^f  .  against  Del. 


vii.  18,  19.]  A    BETTER    HOPE    BROUGHT    IN.  247 

tification  of  what  he  says  about  the  commandment,  the  Apostle 
adds,  in  parenthesis,  that  the  law  generally,  of  which  the  com- 
mandment in  question  formed  so  fundamental  a  part,  brought 
nothing  to  perfection,  and  has  in  no  respect  brought  about  a 
perfect  relation  to  God.^ 

As  the  antithesis  ^  of  the  commandment  and  of  the  actual  ex- 
perience of  its  unprofitableness  and  of  its  consequent  abrogation, 
the  Apostle  declares  (still  expounding  his  Psalm-text) :  a  bringing 
in  thereupon  of  a  better  hope  [takes  place.]  The  e-i  in  i-ztGaywy-q 
expresses  that  the  new  enters  there  where  hitherto  the  old  existed. 
The  priesthood  with  its  commandment  is  abrogated,  and  in  the 
place  comes  the  Priest  and  hope. 

The  word  better  does  not  express  comparison  between  some- 
thing common  to  the  commandment  and  to  what  takes  the  place 
of  the  commandment,  as  if  both  presented  hope,  but  the  latter  a 
better  hope.  ^  The  commandment  and  hope  are  contrasted. 
The  former  is  found  to  be  profitless,  i.  e.,  good  for  nothing  in  the 
matter  of  perfection,  though  not  profitless  in  every  respect.  The 
hope  that  comes  in  its  place  is  better  than  it,  because  it  is  profit- 
able in  the  very  respect  in  which  the  other  is  not.  And  this 
profitableness  is  expressed  in  the  words ;  through  which  we  draw 
near  to  God.  ^Drawing  near  to  God  can  only  be  truly  done  by 
virtue  of  the  perfection  tnat  comes  through  priestly  mediation. 
This  better  hope  is  the  same  that  has  been  set  forth  so  gloriously 
vi.  19,  as  entering  within  the  vail,  where  Christ  has  entered  into 
the  presence  of  God,  a  forerunner  for  us.  Here  it  is  consistently 
represented  as  that  by  which  we  draw  near  to  God.  We  follow 
our  forerunner.  Our  hope  is  where  he  is,  and  is  what  he  makes 
it  there.  He,  as  priest,  has  drawn  near  to  God,  and  brings  us 
there. 

Every  reader  of  our  vers.  18,  19  is  reminded  of  Gal.  iv.  9 ; 
Rom.  viii.  3.  "  No  one  can  doubt  that  it  is  one  of  those  coinci- 
dences which  could  hardly  take  place  where  there  was  not  com- 
mvmity  of  thought  and  diction,"  *  We  think,  however,  that  we 
trace  still  more  ;  even  nothing  less  than  a  common  author. 

1  von  Hof.  2  jjiEv — df,  with  Liiu.,  Del.,  von  Hof. ;  against  Alford. 

^  Against  von  Hof.  ♦  Alford. 


248  DOES   PAUL   WRITE  THIS?  [vii,  18,  19. 

The  likeness  of  our  context  extends  to  a  likeness  between  vers. 
16  and  Rom.  viii.  2,  where ;  "  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in 
Christ  Jesus  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death/'  seems 
to  be  the  very  truth  expressed  by  calling  Christ :  "a  priest 
raised  up  not  according  to  a  law  of  carnal  commandment,  but 
according  to  power  of  life  indissoluble."  It  is  the  same  truth 
doing  service  in  Rom.  viii.,  among  Gentile  Christians,  as  here  it 
does  service  among  Jewish  Christians.  It  is  but  the  same 
Author  speaking  in  two  situations,  as  it  is  the  same  truth  for  two 
different  relations.  It  is  evident  enough,  "  that  the  circle  of 
ideas  in  which  we  find  ourselves  here  is,  although  a  substantially 
allied,  yet  a  somewhat  different  one  from  that  of  those  two 
Pauline  Epistles."  '  But  some,  ^  while  admitting  this,  find  in 
rs}.£iiU(Tc?  an  un-Pauline  way  of  expressing  the  sum  of  all  Chris- 
tian aims :  and  d<r'9£v^9  and  dvuxpeXi^,  as  describing  the  law,  to 
mean  something  less  revolutionary  of  previous  notions  of  law  than 
the  similar  utterances  in  Romans  and  Galatians.  As  for  the  latter, 
with  df'iirrjffo}  ivro^^  before  our  eyes,  we  fail  to  see  any  truth  in  the 
view.  As  for  reX^iuxn^  and  TeXtuwv,  there  is  a  peculiar  fitness  in 
such  terms  when  discoursing,  as  our  Author  does,  to  Jewish 
Christians  on  the  subjects  here  presented ;  whereas,  when  addressing 
Gentile  Christians,  he  might  find  TzXr^pouv  and  TzkrjpujijLa,^  adequate 
expressions  for  the  same  ideas  as  applied  to  their  case.     So  Paul 

continues  I.  C.  Rom.  viii.  4,  ha  rd  8ua{uj/j.a  r.  vu/j.ou  Tikrjfxjjd^fi  h   ijixiv. 

The  Apostle  has  shown  the  comparative  greatness  of  the  Mel- 
chizedek  Priest,  as  to  his  dignity  considered  in  itself  (vers.  4-11). 
He  then  shows  his  superiority  considered  with  reference  to  the 
need  of  the  people  by  pressing  the  consequence  of  his  being 
raised  up  a  different  order  of  priest,  viz.,  that  it  means  the  abro- 
gation of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  law  (vers.  11-19).  In  the 
conclusion  of  this  second  argument,  he  also  declares  what  the 
Melchizedek  Priest  brings  in  with  his  new  order,  viz.,  "  a  better 
hope  by  which  we  draw  near  to  God."  This  is  a  chief  thought 
in  all  the  presentation  of  Christ  from  iv.  14-16  ;  and  has  been 

1  Del.  "^  e.  g.  Del. 

'Eph.  iii.  19;  iv.  13;  Phil.  i.  11 ;  Col.  i.  10,  24,  25;  u.  10;  iv.  12,  where 
mark  the  teIeiol  nal  irerrXripocjiopTinEvoi  Rec.  Tve-Kltjpup^voi-,  2.  Thess.  i.  11,  12. 


vii.  20-22.]  THE   PRIEST   BY   GOD's   OATH.  249 

repeated  vi.  19.  And  this  key  note  will  (ix.  1 — x.  19  sqq.),  be 
"  expanded  into  a  whole  strain  of  argument."  ^  At  this  point 
the  Apostle  uses  it  to  set  forth  in  another  light  the  superiority  of 
the  Melchizedek  Priest  to  the  Aarouic  priesthood.  We  say, 
another  light,  viz.,  in  the  following  respect.  In  verses  11-19, 
that  superiority  has  been  set  forth  negatively,  as  it  involves  the 
abrogation  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  showing  how  that 
was  treated  as  weak  and  profitless.  The  superiority  is  now  to 
be  set  forth  "positively,  as  it  appears  in  its  own  intrinsic  worth. 
This  is  already  presented,  as  just  said,  in  the  concluding  words 
of  verse  19.  Therefore,  what  is  added  is  appropriately  conjoined 
by  zar=And. 

Ver.  20  («).  And  inasmuch  as  not  without  an  oath  [does  this 
induction  of  a  better  hope  take  place]  .  .  22.  by  so  much  also 
hath  Jesus  become  surety  of  a  better  covenant. 

The  ellipsis  in  ver.  20  must  be  supplied  from  the  statement 
immediately  preceding,^  which  requires  nothing  more  than  a 
yvjtzai  to  be  understood.  The  emphasis  of  the  thought  just 
expressed  ver.  19,  would  make  the  reader  supply  it  as  subject 
here,  unless  the  words  immediately  following  would  pointedly 
present  another.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  such  is  not  the 
case,  from  the  fact  that  those  who  look  there  for  the  subject  are 

divided  whether  to  supply  hpzh<i  ian^  yeyo'^ib^^  or    diai^xTjg  eyyuixi 

yiyove}  With  regard  to  the  former  of  these,  it  would  seem 
enough  that  it  is  left  to  be  supplied  once  in  the  very  clause  itself, 
from  which  it  would  be  drawn  as  subject  for  ver.  20  a.  In 
regard  to  the  latter,  the  long  parenthesis  ver.  20  6  21,  makes  it 
much  too  remote.  In  the  foregoing  translation,  we  have  left  out 
the  parenthesis  (ver.  20  6-21)  by  which  the  Apostle  represents 
how  it  was  a  fact  that  the  better  hope  was  brought  in  by  an  oath. 
He  does  this  by  quoting  again  his  Psalm  text  (ex.  4)  ;  this  time 
citing  the  words  that  are  to  the  point :  The  Lord  sware  and  will 
not  repent  himself,  and  which  he  has  so  far  made  no  use  of  in 
this  extended  exposition  of  the  text.  At  the  same  time  he 
omits  :  "  after  the  order  of  Melchizcdek."     That  the  oath  which 

'  Alford.  *  So  Del.,  von  Hof.,  de  Wette,  BIcek  ;  against  Alford,  etc. 

*  Lun.  *  Ebrard,  Alford. 


250  SUEETY   OF   A   BETTER   COVENANT.      [vii.  20-22. 

made  Christ  a  priest  brought  in  the  better  hope  is  precisely  the 
result  reached  by  his  antecedent  exposition  vers.  11-19.  The 
Psalm  is  not  again  quoted  to  prove  that,  but  to  remind  that  it 
was  done  by  an  oath,  and  to  point  the  precise  significance  of  the 
oath,  viz.,  that  what  was  established  thus  was  never  to  be  changed 
(and  will  not  repent  himself).  In  this  representation,  a  contrast 
is  made  between  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  Christ  as  Melchize- 
dek  priest  (o?  jih — 6  Si) ;  for  they,  without  an  oath,  are  the  priests 
they  became  {siah  yeyoWj-r-^)  ^  but  he  with  an  oath  by  him  who  saith 
unto^  him,  etc.  The  time  of  saying  this  is  iu  the  Psalm,  that  is 
conceived  of  as  a  contiuuedly  present  word  of  God.  This  explains 
the  ToD  ?.iyu'^T(i?,  and  also  answers^  the  captiousness  that  would 
object  that,  in  the  Psalm  itself,  only  the  latter  words  of  the 
clause :  a);ioffev  .  .  aicu'^a,  are  imputed  to  God.  The  affirmation 
that  the  Aaronic  priests  were  not  established  by  an  oath,  neither 
in  general,  nor  successively  and  singly,  is  founded,  not  merely  on 
the  absence  of  any  record  to  that  effect,  but  also  (and  this  rather), 
on  what  was  known  of  the  priests  that  were  {eitrry)*  at  the  time 
of  this  writing.  The  point  of  the  contrast  here  made  is,  that 
seeing  God  made  Christ  a  priest  with  an  oath,  and  the  oath  was 
the  guarantee  that  there  should  be  no  change  in  this,  therefore 
it  is  intimated,  that  the  priests  that  were  made  priests  without 
an  oath  might  be  changed.  God  had  not  guaranteed  their  per- 
petuity. Thus  the  Aaronic  priesthood  with  its  commandment 
was  left  liable  to  be  changed,  whereas,  the  Melchizedek  Priest 
and  His  better  hope  were  established  in  perpetuity.  Speaking, 
then,  of  the  better  hope  coming  to  pass  by  an  oath,  the  Author 
says,  inasmuch,  as  this  was  so,  by  so  much  also  hath  Jesus  become 
surety  of  a  better  covenant. 

The  bettemess  means  here  the  unchangeable  perpetuity  of  the 
hope  connected  with  this  ]\Ielchizedek  Priest.  The  contrast  of 
the  parenthesis  shows  this.  By  so  much  expresses  measure,  and 
the  oath  with  the  unchangeable  priesthood  it  establishes  is  the 
measure.     The  same  hope  has  been  described  (vi.   19)  as  "  sure 

^  Not  the  same  as  yey6va<jLv  ;  with  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Alford ;  against  de  Wette, 
Liin.     The  following  yeyove  marks  that  a  difference  is  intended. 
2  irpdg^  comp.  i.  7.  ^  So  von  Hof.  *  See  Alford. 


vii.  20—22.]  eyyuo'i,  fitairrj?.  251 

and  steadfast."  But  the  Apostle  here  says  :  covenant,  and  not 
"  hope."  This  is  not  because  he  means  something  wholly  differ- 
ent, which  is  impossible,  owing  to  the  logical  connection  with 
the  premise  :  inasmuch  as  not  without  an  oath  it  came  about,  viz., 
"  the  better  hope."  And  whatever  is  supplied  in  the  premise, 
the  same  relation  would  exist  between  that  and  covenant.  By 
saying  :  better  covenant,  the  Apostle  indirectly  affirms  that  the 
better  hope  is  based  on  a  covenant,  which  is  better  for  the  same 
reason  that  the  hope  is.  In  fact,  this  is  a  warning  note  of  a  new 
phase  of  his  theme,  that  the  Apostle  means  to  amplify,  and  on 
which  he  enters  viii.  7  sqq.  We  have  had  other  instances  of  the 
same  manner  of  introducing  his  topics  of  discourse,  and  we  shall 
have  more.  Of  this  covenant,  he  says  :  Jesus  has  become  surety. 
A  surety  (syyuo?)  is  one  that  is  pledged  as  guaranteeing  a  thing 
e.  g.,  an  agreement  or  promise.  Jesus  is  such  in  relation  to  a  better 
covenant  that  concerns  "  a  better  hope,"  because,  according  to 
the  context  as  just  explained,  the  oath  that  makes  His  priesthood 
perpetual  makes  the  better  hope  "  sure  and  steadfast,"  and  makes 
the  better  covenant  the  same.  As  for  when,  or  how  He  became 
surety,  the  context  offers  no  other  idea  than  that  it  was  by  the 
oath  that  made  him  Melchizcdek  Priest.  And  this  is  what  is 
meant  and  no  more ;  and  it  is  surely  enough.  We  must  not 
confound  the  notions  of  surety  and  mediator  (/^crrtVi;?,  viii.  6).  It 
is  such  confusion  when  the  surety  of  Jesus  for  the  covenant,  is 
supposed  to  be  by  virtue  of  His  having  offered  Himself  here  and 
of  His  presence  with  God  now.^  Jesus  is  surety  for  the  covenant 
and  the  promise  because  He  and  they  are  identified  ;  the  Mel- 
chizedek  Priest  and  the  promise,  as  the  bondsman  and  the  bond. 
What  makes  His  priesthood  sure  and  unfailing,  makes  the  cov- 
enant and  hope  sure  in  the  same  degree.  The  context  contem- 
plates Jesus  only  as  priest,  and  the  only  thing  that  makes  Him 
sure  as  a  priest  is  the  oath  that  made  Him  such,  and  that  is  never 
to  change. 

The  Author  here  again,  as  has  been  noted  above  in  anticipa- 
tion, names  Jesus  as  the  subject  of  whom  he  speaks  as  he  expounds 
the  meaning  of  Ps.  ex.  4.     In  vers.  24,   25,  he  applies  to  Him 

*  Against  Del. 


252  OUR    PRIEST   VS.    MANY    MORTAL   PRIESTS,     [vii.  23,  24. 

the  notion  of  perpetuity  expressed  in  the  Psalm,  that  he  has 
already  applied  vers.  3,  8,  16,  17.  Though  the  names  Melchiz- 
edek  and  Jesus  suggest  different  subjects,  there  is  nothing  in  all 
the  context  vers.  1-25,  that  expressly  distinguishes  them,  e.  g., 
as  the  ol  /J.SV — o  di  distinguish  Jesus  and  the  Aaronic  priesthood. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  representations  drawn  from  Ps.  ex.  4  are 
applied  in  a  uniform  manner  to  the  subject,  whether  named  Mel- 
chizedek  or  Jesus,  or  represented  by  the  pronouns  outo?,  o?.  We 
maintain,  therefore,  that  in  all  this  representation,  only  one  sub- 
ject is  meant,  viz.,  Jesus  Melchizedek. 

The  Apostle  adds  one  more  consideration  from  Ps.  ex.  4,  to 
illustrate  the  superiority  of  Christ's  priesthood  to  the  Aaronic, 
and  it  is  the  second  in  illustration  of  the  positive  aspect  of  this 
subject,  viz.,  his  merit  with  respect  to  those  who  need  priestly 
mediation. 

Yer,  23.  And  they,  indeed,  are  a  plurality  become  priests, 
because  hindered  by  death  from  remaining ;  24.  but  he,  because  he 
remains  forever,  has  his  priesthood  unchangeable ; 

This  thought,  as  derived  from  Ps.  ex.,  has  been  used  before, 
ver.  8,  in  reference  to  tithing,  to  illustrate  the  superiority  of  the 
Melchizedek  Priest  in  respect  to  dignity  and  in  himself  consid- 
ered ;  and  again,  vers.  15-17,  to  show  that  superiority  with  ref- 
erence to  the  existing  priesthood,  marking  a  different  order  of 
priesthood  and  as  being  something  before  which  the  latter  must 
change  and  go  down.  Here  it  is  used  again  to  represent,  that 
the  INIelchizedek  Priest  is  never  to  yield  his  priesthood  to 
another.^  Thus,  not  only  the  priesthood,  but  the  Priest  remain 
the  same.  And  Jesus  is  the  surety  of  a  better  covenant  as  one 
that  remains  forever  to  give  it  effect  Himself. 

In  pointing  the  contrast  here,  it  is  said  that  the  existing  priest- 
hood are  become  such  in  numbers  or  plurality.  We  need  not 
suppose  the  appeal  is  to  anything  but  the  familiar  fact.  The 
reason  for  the  fact  is  assigned  :  they  were  hindered  by  death  from 
remaining-,  i.  e.,  remaining  the  priests  they  were;^  (not:  remain- 
ing alive).^  And  when  it  is  said  of  Jesus :  because  he  remains 
forever,  the  contrast  is,  that  the  existing  priests  were  subject  to 

^  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Liin.,  Alford.  ^  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Alford.  ^  Liin. 


vii.  25.]  ABLE   TO  SAVE   TO   THE   UTTERMOST.  253 

death  which  put  an  end  to  their  priestly  activity/  This  contrast 
of  many  always  changing,  and  One  that  remains  in  possession  of 
His  priesthood,  discharging  its  functions,  makes  the  latter  as  a 
person  totally  different  from  the  others  as  persons.  The  persons 
of  the  others  counted  for  nothing.  This  Person  counts  for 
everything.  His  office,  its  functions,  in  fact  everything  is  summed 
up  in  Himself.  He  makes  perfect.  He  saves.  This  conclusion 
the  Author  proceeds  to  draw  without  pause  : 

Ver.  25.  Whence  also  he  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  those 
approaching  God  through  him,  ever  living  as  he  does  to  intercede 
for  them. 

This,  we  say  follows  without  pause,  and,  with  most  editions 

of  the  text,^  we  would  sever  it  from  what  precedes  only  by  a 
colon. 

The  £19  rd  ■!:avTtli<s  means  "  wholly,  completely,"  comprehend- 
ing the  utmost  that  is  involved  in  the  predicate.  As  in  Luke 
xiii.  11  (the  only  instance  of  its  use  in  the  New  Testament 
beside  here),  it  means  that  the  woman  could  not  raise  herself 
completely,  i.  e..,  to  the  perfect  uprightness  proper  to  the  human 
form.  So  Jesus  can  do  everything  that  pertains  to  saving. 
To  save  is  the  emphatic  notion  here,  and  not  that  he  is  able,  as  the 
position  of  <7(I)'^£tv  in  the  sentence  shows.  But  it  is  to  save,  as  the 
verbal  notion  is  completed  by  the  adverbial  d<?  to  ravr^A^?,  that 
is  emphatic.  Saying  that  Jesus  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost, 
expresses  a  contrast  with  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  what  was 
inferentially  expressed  concerning  it  (ver.  11),  viz.:  that  perfec- 
tion was  not  to  be  had  through  them.  Whatever  they  could  do 
about  salvation,  it  was  not  to  the  uttermost.  The  Author  will 
show  later  how  far  it  was  from  saving  at  all.^  But  by  declaring 
here  that  Jesus  can  save  to  the  uttermost,  he  shows  that  there  is 
no  need  for  another  Saviour.  He  will  put  it  more  uncompromis- 
ingly further  on,  that  there  is  no  other  way  of  salvation.  Such 
being  the  only  indication  of  the  context  as  to  what  is  here  meant  by 
to  save,  we  see  that  it  has  its  usual  solemn  New  Testament  sense 
of  rescuing  from  sin  and  condemnation,^  or  in  other  words,  the 

*  von  Hof.  *  Against  Alford,  von  Hof. 

"  Comp.  ix.  9,  10 ;  X.  1  -4.  *  Bleek,  Alford. 


254  EVER    LIVING   TO    INTERCEDE.  [vii.  25. 

same  meaning  with  which  the  Author  uses  the  substantive  "  sal- 
vation "  (fftDTfjpia,)} 

We  must,  therefore,  reject  the  view  ^  that  understands  the  sal- 
vation to  refer  only  to  deliverance  out  of  such  trials  as  those 
experience  who  are  already  delivered  from  sin  and  have  received 
salvation.  The  appeal  to  iv.  14,  as  connecting  further  with  ii. 
18,  does  not  corroborate  that  view.  The  present  statement  of 
Christ's  effective  work  in  saving  must  be  ifhderstood  to  be  a 
reiteration  of  what  is  expressed  hortatively  {Tzpuffepx^iJ-encx)  iv.  16. 
But  we  have  seen  in  that  place,  that  what  is  meant  is  the 
approaching  of  those  under  the  law  and  its  condemnation  to  enter 
the  better  and  saving  relations  of  the  new  covenant.  And  what : 
"  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  "  means  there,  to  save  means  here. 
The  Apostle  is  now  at  the  threshold  of  that  part  of  his  subject 
that  treats  of  the  new  covenant  relations  of  which  Christ  is  the 
Mediator.  It  is  in  chap.  viii. ;  and  our  present  ver.  25  with  26- 
28,  make  a  transition  to  it.  There  the  crowning  blessing  of  the 
relation  that  Christ  mediates  is  the  promise  :  "  I  will  be  merciful 
to  their  iniquities  and  their  sins  I  will  remember  no  more." 
That  expresses  the  salvation  meant  here  by  :  to  save,  both  as  to 
the  uttermost  [eW  rd  -a'^rsXig)  and  as  to  the  ever  (Trdwore).  It  is 
because  Jesus  as  the  Melchizedek  Priest  ever  lives  to  make  inter- 
cession, that  the  iniquities  will  be  remembered  no  more ;  and 
because  He  is  such  a  High  Priest  as  hereafter  described,  that  the 
iniquities  are  blotted  out  in  mercy.  Lives  to  make  intercession 
is  stated  as  the  equivalent  of  what  is  expressed  ver.  25  a.  The 
Apostle  does  not  think  of  a  priest  without  the  functions  of 
a  priest. 

Here,  as  at  ii.  3-18;  iv.  16,  and  as  he  continues  to  do  viii. 
7-12  ;  ix.  14,  15 ;  x.  2-4,  the  Author  treats  his  readers  as  Jews 
were  to  be  treated,  viz.,  as  sinners  under  revealed  law  and  con- 
demned by  it,  and  to  be  delivered  from  its  condemnation.  And 
when  he  speaks  of  salvation  he  means  that  deliverance. 

In  the  present  ver.  25  it  is  said,  Jesus  is  able  to  save  those 
that  approach  unto  God  through  him.  The  7rpo(Tepxo,aivou9  does  not 
express   a  different  notion   from  the  lyyiZoixsv  {\ev.  19);  yet   it 

1  i.  14 ;  ii.  3,  10 ;  v.  9 ;  vi.  9.  ^  Of  von  Hof. 


vii.  25.]  A   SAMPLE   OF   INSPIEED   EXEGESIS.  255 

seems  to  express  more,  as  being  the  more  appropriate  word  for 
that  which  is  doue  "  with  boldness,"  ^  and  finished  by  being  with 
God  and  remaining  there,  while  lyyi'^eiv  was  the  technical  term 
for  that  drawing  near  that  was  done  only  in  a  typical  way  and 
needed  to  be  continually  repeated.  This  approach  to  God  is 
through  Jesus,  i.  e.,  by  means  of  {dui)  Jesus.  Those  that  so 
approach  He  can  save,  and  no  others. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  ever  liveth  reiterates  the  expression  of 
ver.  14 :  "  because  He  remains  forever.  He  has  His  priesthood 
unchangeable."  This  gives  special  prominence  to  the  truth 
so  expressed,  as  constituting  the  crowning  characteristic  that 
marks  the  pre-eminence  of  Christ's  priesthood  compared  with 
the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  the  signal  trait  that  seals  all  the 
other  traits  of  pre-eminence  that  have  been  enumerated. 

As  at  this  point  the  Apostle  has  finished  the  reference  to  Mel- 
chizedek,  and  with  that  his  exposition  of  Ps.  ex.  4,  excepting  a 
reference  that  occurs  ver.  38,  we  may  here  pause  to  make  some 
reflections  on  both. 

The  exposition  of  the  Psalm  text  is  the  most  remarkable 
example  of  scriptural  exposition  that  we  have  from  an  inspired 
writer.  As  an  example  of  exposition  alone  it  claims  the  most 
careful  study.  It  is  the  more  comprehensive  as  a  study,  because 
it  involves  a  reference  to  other  matter  of  record  in  scripture,  viz., 
Gen.  xiv.  18-20.  Of  his  Psalm  text  the  Apostle  does  not  leave 
a  single  word  unnoticed.  He  builds  successively  on  each  as  on 
a  foundation  of  rock.  He  appeals  to  it  as  a  word  that  God 
spoke  long  ago,  and  that  he  speaks  now  while  the  Author  writes. 
He  takes  it  as  spoken  of  Christ;  and  as  not  needing  a  prelimi- 
nary  word  to  explain  that  such  was  its  original  meaning.  We 
have  seen  above  at  i.  13,  that  there  was  the  fullest  justification 
for  his  doing  this,  as  far  as  Jewish  readers  were  concerned.  It 
is,  however,  a  gross  misunderstanding  of  the  spirit  with  which 
he  treats  the  scripture,  to  suppose  that  this  appeal  to  Ps.  ex.  is  a 
species  of  argumentum  ad  hominem,  or  merely  taking  his  readers 
on  their  own  ground.  It  is  less,  but  only  less,  unworthy  to  see 
in  his  reasoning  from  Ps.  ex.  and  Gen.  xiv.,  only  the  manner 

1  iv.  16. 


256  THE    WORD    OF    GOD    INFALLIBLE.  [vii.  25. 

peculiar  to  Rabbinical  schools.  A  scholar  that  was  held  captive 
by  Rabbinical  school  dialectics  could  never  have  come  to  such  an 
imderstanding  of  Christ  as  is  taught  from  these  texts.  Nor 
could  one  that  has  such  truth  to  teach  commend  it  by  any  species 
of  argumenium  ad  hominem  conducted  so  seriously,  and  at 
such  length,  and  with  no  claim  to  any  other  foundation  for  what 
he  says  than  God's  express  meaning  and  purpose.  In  the  use  the 
Apostle  makes  of  his  Psalm  text,  and  of  Gen.  xiv.,  as  the  origi- 
nal record  that  furnishes  the  foundation  fol*  the  Psalmist's  word, 
he  uses  the  scripture  as  the  infallible  word  of  God,  and  regards 
the  Psalmist  as  doing  the  same.  Infallible,  we  mean,  both  in 
the  sense,  that  the  scripture  word  before  him  is  accurate  and 
exact  as  a  record,  and  that  it  is  true  in  respect  to  the  matter 
revealed.  And  this  appeal  is  without  anything  to  intimate  that 
the  scripture  in  question  had  any  singular  advantage  over-  other 
Holy  Scripture  in  point  of  credibility,  authenticity  or  genuine- 
ness. It  is  all  with  a  manner  that  betokens  that  the  Author 
would  use  any  text  of  the  same  scrij^tures  in  the  same  way.  It 
is  only  in  his  treatment  of  Gen.  xiv.  18-20  that  the  Author 
seems  to  resort  to  a  strange  method  of  interpretation.  Yet  we 
see  that  this  impression  is  due  more  to  errors  about  his  meaning 
than  to  what  he  actually  represents.  Whoever  agrees  with  the 
foregoing  explanations  of  vii.  1-25,  in  other  words,  understands 
Jesus  alone,  and  not  Melchizedek,  to  be  the  subject  of  all  that  is 
represented,  will  feel,  with  ourselves,  that  there  is  nothing  far- 
fetched or  strained  in  the  Author's  exposition.  His  inferences 
from  the  silence  of  scripture  are  just  and  according  to  common 
sense,  and  such  as  every  expositor  must  make,  and  as,  in  fact,  are 
made  every  day  in  interpreting  common  human  discourse.  In 
the  reliance  he  places  on  every  word  of  scripture,  and  in  his 
method  of  interpreting  it,  the  Apostle  gives  in  this  exposition  a 
plain,  impressive  and  stimulating  example  to  every  student  of 
revelation. 

On  the  IMelchizedek  subject  itself,  after  having  gone  through 
it  with  the  patient  scrutiny,  and  having  been  rewarded  by  the 
clear  result  of  the  foregoing  investigation,  we  are  sensible  of  a 
feeling  of  disappointment.     And  we  suppose  that  in  other  minds 


vii.  25.]       THE    MELCIIIZEDEK    SUBJECT    CONSIDERED.  257 

there  may  arise  the  exclamation  :  is  that  all !  In  the  plainness 
of  the  subject  we  miss  a  correspondence  with  the  anticipation  we 
had  in  approaching  it.  The  result  seems  not  to  correspond  even 
to  the  air  of  importance  that  breathes  in  the  representation  of 
the  subject.  But  if  the  passage  has  been  correctly  understood 
and  explained,  it  is,  of  course,  obvious  that  the  passage  itself  is 
not  to  be  found  fault  with  for  the  feeling  of  disappointment. 
This  arises  from  something  extraneous  to  the  passage  and  to  the 
subject  it  presents.  We  think  it  is  due  to  the  difficulty  we  find 
in  putting  ourselves  in  the  place  of  the  original  readers.  And 
what  is  our  difficulty  has  been  the  difficulty  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tian readers  from  the  first.  We  never  had  a  religion  of  a  divinely 
appointed  priesthood,  and  sacrifices  and  commandments.  We 
never  knew  what  it  was  to  rely  on  them  as  the  means  of  pleas- 
ing God,  who  instituted  them.  The  heathen  have  similar  things  ; 
but  their  worship  was  never  revealed  by  the  God  of  that  Christ 
whom  they  are  called  to  believe  and  follow.  They  are  not  per- 
plexed by  the  fact  that  the  things  they  must  forsake  were  once 
the  true  means  of  grace  and  of  acceptable  worship,  and  used  by 
Christ  himself,  and  that  they  continued  to  be  observed  by  his 
Apostles  even  after  Christ  was  perfected  and  exalted  to  the  right 
hand  of  God.  We  cannot,  therefore,  feel  what  it  was  to  a  Chris- 
tian Jew  to  be  told,  that  all  was  changed  about  the  Aarouic 
priesthood  and  its  attending  commandment ;  that  something  else 
had  come  in  its  place ;  that  it  never  could  establish  a  complete 
relation  to  God,  and  was  never  intended  to  do  so ;  but  that  God 
had  raised  up  another  priest  for  that,  and  declared  his  purpose  to 
do  so  long  ago ;  that  Jesus  was  that  Melchizedek  Priest ;  and 
that  to  Him  and  Him  only  they  must  look  for  the  perfection 
they  had  vainly  supposed  was  to  be  had  through  the  Aaronic 
priesthood.  We  cannot,  therefore,  feel  the  sentiment  of  dread 
and  wonder  with  which  a  Jewish  Christian,  who  still  cherished 
much  of  these  false  hopes,  would  follow  an  Apostle's  reasoning 
from  an  express  and  plain  declaration  of  God's  word.  We  can 
hardly  suspect  the  emotions  with  which  he  would  sec  the  follow- 
ing positions  well  taken  and  convincingly  established  :  Christ 
made  of  God  a  Priest ;  greater  than  Abraham,  and  so,  of  course, 

17 


258  HOW    IT   MUST    AFFECT   JEWS.  [vii.  25. 

greater  than  Levi  and  all  descended  from  him ;  Christ's  a  dis- 
tinct order  of  priesthood,  with  traits  of  superiority,  especially  its 
perpetuity,  all  indicating  that  the  institution  of  that  priesthood 
meant  the  abrogation  of  the  existing  one :  Christ's  priesthood 
endowed  with  the  virtue  of  providing  perfection  that  brings  sin- 
ners to  God,  that  the  existing  priesthood  confessedly,  at  least  to 
the  Psalmist,  had  not ;  and  instituted  by  an  oath  securing  its 
perpetuity,  which  oath  gives  the  utmost  significance  to  the  fact 
that  the  existing  priesthood  was  never  so  instituted  (viz.,  that  it 
lacked  what  was  essential  to  its  perpetuity) ;  and  Christ  the 
Priest  Himself  everlasting,  while  existing  priests  were  dying  and 
others  taking  their  places.  To  one  still  held  by  the  old  religious 
sentiments  of  the  Jews,  each  of  these  points,  as  it  came  clearly 
to  view,  must  have  been  apprehended  with  bated  breath  and 
beating  heart,  and  with  a  sentiment  of  fear  as  long  as  conviction 
trembled  in  the  balance.  And  the  Apostle,  on  his  part,  conducts 
his  argument  as  one  that  deals  with  minds  in  this  state,  unflinch- 
ingly, convincingly,  yet  withal  considerately.  The  whole  passage 
has  an  unmistakeable  air  of  communicating  something  of  the 
greatest  importance,  unfamiliar,  unexpected.  We  suspect  that 
the  unsympathetic  Gentile  mind,  missing  the  real  importance  of 
the  communication,  yet  apprehending  the  spirit  of  importance 
that  breathes  in  the  whole  passage,  has  been  misled.  Finding 
nothing  in  the  real  meaning  of  it  to  impress  them  deeply  (for 
what  was  the  Aaronic  priesthood  to  them),  Gentile  readers  sought 
a  meaning  that  might  correspond  to  the  manifest  air  of  import- 
ance pervading  the  communication,  and  thus  have  suspected 
meanings  that  would  impress  the  Gentile  mind  with  religious 
awe.  It  is  from  this  source  that  traditional  interpretations  have 
come  to  us,  and,  as  Gentiles  still  further  removed  in  sympathy 
from  the  original  readers  of  this  epistle,  we  are  exposed  to  the 
same  misconception. 

But  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  may  represent  to  himself 
the  situation  of  those  whom  the  Apostle  addressed.  Let  him  be 
one  who  believes  that  these  United  States  were  by  the  Federal 
Constitution  bound  up  in  a  perpetual  union ;  that  the  destinies 
of  the  country  and  all  the  proper  aims  of  citizenship  and  bless- 


vii.  25.]  A   SIMILAR   CASE   FOR   US.  259 

ings  of  civil  life  must  be  realized  in  that  union  ;  let  him  be  a 
citizen  that,  on  principle  and  with  the  utmost  devotion  of  patriot- 
ism, made  sacrifices  and  was  fighting  as  a  soldier,  or  commanding 
as  an  officer  in  the  war  to  establish  the  Union  against  the  formid- 
able rebellion  of  disunion.  Let  such  a  one  hear,  from  one  having 
Apostolic  authority,  an  argmnent  that  would  successively  take  up 
the  following  positions  and  convincingly  establish  them  as  by  the 
express  declaration  of  the  original  framers  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution ;  viz.,  that  that  constitution  M^as  not  intended  to  be  per- 
petual ;  that  a  future  emergence  of  distinct  and  separate  confed- 
eracies was  provided  for ;  that  such  a  rearrangement  of  civil  life 
was  the  aim  of  the  confederate  leaders ;  and  that  the  proper  des- 
tinies of  the  populations  of  this  continent  and  the  best  happiness 
of  civil  existence  were  to  be  attained  in  that  way.  Let  such 
unfamiliar  things  appear  to  such  a  citizen,  uttered  by  authority 
to  which  he  must  listen,  and  with  convincing  reasons  to  which  he 
could  only  oppose  his  prejudices  and  likings  and  habits  of  thought, 
while  he  must  admit  their  validity ;  and  he  must  listen  with  fear 
and  trembling.  On  the  other  hand,  his  instructor,  if  endowed 
with  Apostolic  wisdom,  would  communicate  the  unfamiliar  things 
with  a  moderation  of  manner  that  would  leave  them  to  make  their 
impression  by  their  naked  simplicity.  To  complete  the  repre- 
sentation, let  us  suppose  this  discourse  to  be  read  by  some  citizen 
of  one  of  the  many  nationalities  of  Europe,  with  no  sympathy 
for  the  cause  of  Union  here,  and  unable  to  think  of  a  better  social 
state  than  that  presented  by  the  political  map  of  the  continent  of 
Europe.  In  the  latter  we  would  have  one  in  much  the  situation 
we  are  in  ourselves  when  reading  this  epistle.  He  might  feel  the 
sentiment  of  vital  importance  that  breathed  in  the  discourse. 
Its  author  might  be  one  whose  words  he  believed  must  be 
weighed  with  attention.  But  he  would  miss  the  real,  thrilling 
interest  of  the  communications.  He  might,  likely,  be  misled  to 
find  meanings  that,  to  him,  would  seem  to  correspond  to  the  air 
of  importance  that  marked  the  discourse,  yet,  would  actually  be 
quite  foreign  to  what  was  the  meaning  of  the  Author  and  was  the 
burning  and  focal  interest  to  the  readers  he  addressed. 

Yet  Christians  now  ought  not  to  be  strangers  to  the  deep  inter- 


260  THE    HIGH    PRIEST    WE    NEED.  [vii.  26 

ests  involved  in  this  discourse  concerning  Jesus  Melchizedek.  We 
have  an  interest  and  inheritance  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  reve- 
lation, and  in  the  Old  Dispensation  as  part  of  the  redemptive 
history.  And  the  truth  concerning  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  as 
represented  here,  is  not  only  truth  for  Jews.  It  is  not  only  all 
Jews  that  Jesus  the  Melchizedek  Priest  is  able  to  save  to  the 
uttermost  who  approach  unto  God  by  Him.  It  is  all  men.  It 
was  because  God  would  establish  a  priesthood  and  raise  up  a 
priest  to  expiate  sin  for  all  men,  that,  as  said  in  the  Ps.  ex., 
"  the  Lord  hath  sworn  and  will  not  repent ;  Thou  art  a  priest 
forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek."  It  was  because  His  pur- 
pose was  as  expressed  in  Psalm  ii. :  to  give  Christ  a  universal 
dominion.  Roman  citizenship  was  no  less  valuable  to  Paul  than 
to  the  Centurion,  because  he  was  born  such,  aud  had  not  to  buy 
it  as  the  latter.  And  this  Melchizedek  Priest  and  his  command- 
ment are  no  less  precious  to  a  Gentile  than  to  a  Jew,  though  he 
does  not,  as  the  latter,  take  him  in  exchange  for  a  priesthood  and 
commandment  that  have  been  abrogated. 

Ver.  26.  For  such  an  high  priest  also 'became  us,  holy,  guile- 
less, undefiled,  removed  from  sinners,  and  become  higher  than  the 
heavens. 

These  words  are  taken  by  von  Hofmann  as  constituting,  with 
ver.  25,  one  sentence,  in  which  :  For  such  an  high  priest  became 
us  makes  a  parenthesis.  According  to  this,  the  five  predicates 
that  follow  continue  the  list  that  begins  with  :  "  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  us."  But  the  common  view,  that  we  have 
here  a  new  sentence,  is  justified  by  the  importance  of  the  affirma- 
tion of  the  first  clause :  For  such  an  high  priest  also  became  us. 
For  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  Apostle  now  resumes  the  title 
high  priest,  last  applied  to  Jesus  vi.  20.  Having  there  called 
Him  :  "  high  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,"  the  Apostle 
has  paused  to  represent  the  truth  revealed  concerning  Christ,  when, 
in  Ps.  ex.  4,  He  is  called  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 
Having  sufficiently  done  that  (vii.  1-25),  he  resumes  the  title 
high  priest,  combining  with  it  all  the  truth  now  ascertained  as 
involved  in  the  title  Melchizedek,  and  affirms :   Such  an  high 

»  Read  mi  with  [L] ;  Tisch.  viii. ;  Tr.;  [W.  &  H.]  ;  Lun.,  Alf.,  Del. 


vii.  26.]  HOLY,    GUILELESS,    UNDEFILED.  261 

priest  became  US.  Thus  T«fwDT09=  such  refers  to  all  the  preced- 
ing context  of  our  chapter,  aud  comprehensively  applies  it  to  the 
previous  title  high  priest,  with  all  that  has  been  expounded  (v. 
1-10;  vi.  19,  20)  of  the  import  of  the  latter  title.  We  take 
TotouTo?  as  having  this  comprehensive  reference  in  view  of  what 
has  been  remarked  on  the  emphasis  of  the  thought :  "  ever 
livetli "  (ver.  25).  The  For  of  our  verse  connects  directly  with 
that  statement,  and  such  resumes  particularly  the  notion  :  "  ever 
livetli  to  make  intercession."  But  that  notion  by  its  pre-emi- 
nence, and  as  the  seal  to  all  the  other  traits  of  Christ's  Melchizedek 
priesthood,  brings  in  all  the  rest,  while  it  remains  as  the  special 
subject  for  contemplation. 

It  is  important  to  notice  the  precision  with  which  the  Apostle, 
in  this  context,  uses  the  terra  priest  and  high  priest.  It  is  just, 
also,  to  acknowledge  our  indebtedness  to  von  Hofmann.  We 
may  do  this  in  the  words  of  Delitzsch  :*  "  Only  Hofmann  has 
discerned  the  set  design  with  which  the  Author  uses  priest 
alone  up  to  this  point,  and  then  proceeds  :  such  an  high  priest, 
and  shows  how  important  this  observation  is  for  the  understand- 
ing of  the  context."  The  failure  on  the  part  of  many  commen- 
tators to  note  this,^  aud  their  use  of  "  priest "  and  "  high  priest " 
interchangeably  with  reference  to  what  is  taught  (vii.  1-25)  con- 
cerning Christ's  Melchizedek  priesthood,  much  confuses  the 
sense.  It  is  impossible  to  follow  the  discourse  of  the  Apostle 
without  confusion,  unless  we  hold  these  two  notions  distinct,  viz., 
Christ,  a  High  Priest  the  antitype  of  the  Aaronic  high  priest- 
hood, and  Christ  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek.  And 
when  the  notions  are  combined  in  the  title  :  "  a  high  priest  after 
the  order  of  IMelchizedek,"  they  must  be  combined  in  their  dis- 
tinctness. 

Such  an  high  priest  is  the  notion  now  presented,  with  special 
stress  on  the  Melchizedek  attributes  that  have  been  expounded, 
particularly  that  he  remains  a  priest  forever.  Of  this  the  Apostle 
affirms  :   He  also  became  us.     The  xai  =  also,  is  emphatic.      It 

1  On  ver.  25. 

^  Comp.  e.  g.  Calvin's  pontiff x  and  sacerdotes,  vers.  26-28  r  Davidson,  pp. 
129,  143,  147,  who  does  so  deliberately. 


262  REMOVED    FROM   SINNERS.  [vii.  26. 

suggests  what  has  already  been  represented  of  Christ  as  the  anti- 
type of  the  Aaron  ic  high  priestliood,  and  of  His  fitness  for  us/ 
and  declares  that  the  Melchizedek  attributes  are  also  needed  for 
our  case.  He  became  us,  it  is  said.  "E-ps-sv^  used  ii.  10  to 
designate  that  which  was  meet  or  fitting  for  God  to  do  on  our 
behalf,  is  here  repeated  to  designate  what  was  meet  or  fitting  for 
us  to  have  in  Him  who  should  carry  out  the  divine  pleasure.'* 
In  the  former  case  the  reason  is  found  in  God.  In  the  present 
it  is  found  in  ourselves.  With  particular  reference  to  :  "  ever 
liveth  to  make  intercession/'  it  is  our  need  as  sinners  that  have 
sinned,  do  sin  and  will  sin,  and  have  a  sinful  posterity  like  our- 
selves.^ 

As  we  have  found  the  reference  of  such  to  be  backward  to 
what  has  been  represented  of  the  Melchizedek  order,  we  cannot  * 
take  the  five  following  predicates  as  in  apposition  with  it ;  nor  as 
a  further  unfolding  of  rofoDro?,^  which  would  be  giving  it  a 
double  reference  backwards  and  forwards.  These  five  predicates 
are  to  be  taken  in  apposition  with  high  priest.  They  "  are 
selected  characteristics  "  ®  descriptive  of  Jesus  as  antitype  of  the 
Aaronic  high  priesthood,  to  which  all  that  the  Melchizedek  title 
imports  has  now  been  superadded  (xai^  These  predicates  are  not 
involved  in  the  Melchizedek  type.  They  are  in  the  Aaronic, 
and  are  introduced  as  recapitulation  of  representations  already 
made.  As  the  antitype  of  the  Aaronic  high  priest,  i.  e.,  it  must 
be  noted,  after  the  high  priest  had  offered  for  his  own  sins,  Jesus 
is  offfo?  =  "(sanetus),  godly-minded,"  saintly ;  axaxo^  =  guileless, 
having  no  bad  quality  about  Him  ;  diuavzo<i  =  undefiled,  free  from 
contamination  that  might  attach  to  Him  from  an  outward  source ; 
x£;(u)piff/iivo^  X.  T.  ?..  —  "  having  been  removed  from  sinners,"  which 
is  further  defined  by  :  and  become  higher  than  the  heavens.  The 
first  three  of  these  predicates  are  obvious  correspondences  to  the 
Aaronic  high  priests,  only  that  the  reality  is  affirmed  of  Christ, 
whereas  in  the  others  these  things  were  only  acquired  ceremonially 
and  symbolically.  In  the  last  two  predicates  the  correspondence 
appears  from  a  comparison  of  vi.  20,  where  Christ  was  last  named 

'  iv.  14 ;  X.  10.  ^  Del.  ^  Comp.  Kom.  viii.  34;  1  John  ii.  1. 

*  As  e.g.  de  Wette.        *  As  Liin.        *  Del. 


Vii.  26.]  HIGHER    THAN   THE    HEAVENS.  2G3 

High  Priest,  and  said  to  have  entered  within  the  vaih  That  answers 
to  the  Aaronic  high  priest's  entering  into  the  Holiest.  With 
that,  Christ's  removal  from  sinners  took  place.  The  greatness 
of  that  removal  is  indicated  by  here  describing :  "  within  the 
vail "  to  be  :  higher  than  the  heavens.  But  this  is  not  said  to 
mark  the  greatness  of  Christ  as  distinguished  from  sinners.  It 
is  to  intimate  the  greatness  of  the  intercession.  The  high  priest 
entered  the  Holiest  to  intercede  for  the  people ;  and  Christ  is 
removed  from  sinners  within  the  vail,  to  the  highest  heavens  to 
do  the  same.  As  the  Apostle  has  shown  how  in  His  Melchize- 
dek  attributes  Christ  ever  lives  to  intercede,  so  now  he  shows 
where  that  intercession  takes  place,  according  to  his  Aaronic 
attributes.  All  which  is  most  comforting  to  those  who  know 
that  they  have  such  an  high  priest. 

The  common  habit  of  quoting  the  language  before  us  in  a  per- 
verted sense  makes  it  important  to  call  attention  to  its  true  mean- 
ing. Separate  from  sinners  does  not,  in  this  context,  mean  free 
from  being  a  party  to  sin  wath  sinners  ;  nor  free  from  complicity 
with  them ;  nor  removed  from  their  influence.^  This  would  only 
express  what  the  first  three  predicates  have  already  adequately 
expressed.  Nor  does  it  mean  that,  above  the  heavens  Christ  is 
removed  from  the  reach  of  the  malice  of  sinners.^  "  It  must  be 
the  sinfulness  of  sinners,  and  not  their  enmity  against  Him,  that 
points  the  significance  of  His  separation  from  them,  and  makes 
this  worth  mention  here.  This  separation  supplements  His  own 
sinlessness,  not  as  if  otherwise  His  holiness  would  be  endangered, 
but  so  far  as  His  active  holiness  is  withdrawn  from  that  relation 
to  sin  that  formerly  obtained  in  His  case ;  He  can  now  attend 
wholly  to  representing  His  own  before  God." ' 

This  just  interpretation,  so  evident  when  stated,  must  be  a  wel- 
come correction  to  those  who  have  understood  "  separated  from 
sinners"  in  the  erroneous  ways  noted  above.  It  shows  that 
believers  themselves  are  the  sinners  from  whom  our  High  Priest 
is  removed,  and  that  the  removal  is  for  their  benefit.* 

The  Apostle  procedes  to  mention  a  particular  qualification  in 

^  Against  Calvin.  *  Against  Del. 

^  von  Ilof.  *  Coiup.  John  xiv.  28;   xvi.  7. 


264  HE   SACRIFICES    NOT   DAILY,  [vii.  27. 

our  High  Priest  as  now  presented,  that  marks  the  inferiority  of 
the  high  priests  of  the  law.  And  note,  that  it  is  now  of  high 
priest  and  not  priests  that  vers.  27,  28  speak.  The  Apostle  now 
applies  particulai'ly  to  them  inferences  of  the  same  nature  as  those 
he  has  above  (vers.  18-25),  applied  to  priests.  It  is  this  marks  the 
progress  of  thought,  without  which  we  seem  to  have  reiteration 
only,  or  we  are  misled  to  seek  meanings  that  are  not  in  the  text. 

Ver.  27.  Who  hath  not  daily  need,  as  the  high  priest,  to  offer 
up  sacrifices,  first  for  his  own  sins,  then  for  those  of  the  people ;  for 
this  he  did  once  for  all  when  he  offered  up  himself. 

We  may  first  dispose  of  a  difficulty  that  appears  in  this  verse. 
It  seems  to  imply  that  the  high  priests  day  by  day  offered  up 
sacrifices,  first  for  their  own  sins,  then  for  the  people.  The  offer- 
ing so  described  is  evidently  that  which  took  place  only  once  a 
year,  on  the  great  day  of  atonement.  Without  enumerating  the 
various  expedients  proposed  to  ob\'iate  this  difficulty,^  we  may 
give  ^  what  seems  the  best  construction.  A  comparison  with  v. 
1  ;  ix.  17,  26  ;  x.  1,  11,  shows  that  the  Author,  by  the  offerings 
here  described,  can  mean  nothing  else  than  what  occurred  only 
once  a  year.  In  x.  1,  compared  with  x.  11,  he  shows  that  he 
clearly  distinguishes  between  what  high  priests  did  once  a  year 
and  what  they  did  daily  in  sacrificing.  He  cannot,  therefore, 
refer  to  the  latter  by  the  present  expression,  nor  to  both  com- 
bined. Taking  the  present  expression,  then,  to  refer  to  the 
ritual  for  one  yearly  occasion,  the  facts  of  the  case  debar  us  from 
supposing  he  means  that  the  high  priests  did  that  daily.  We 
notice,  then,  that  he  does  not  write :  o?  obx  e-^ei  avdyxrjv  Sxnzep  ol 

dp^cepsl^  xa'Y  r^fiipav;    but  :     o?  ovx  e/st  xa^y  ijfiipa'j   avdyx-qv  wffizzp  ol 

dp'/cspsi'?.  Thus  he  does  not  say  that  the  high  priests  offered 
every  day ;  but  of  Jesus  he  says  that  He  has  not  daily  need  so 
to  offer  sacrifices  as  the  legal  high  priests.  Moreover,  it  is  not 
the  Author's  purpose  here  to  affirm  that  Jesus  is  superior  to  the 
legal  high  priests  in  that  He  had  not  to  do  what  they  did.  Were 
that  the  purpose,  it  would  be  enough  to  say  so,  and  not  be  neces- 
sary to  add  that  He  did  once  for  all  what  they  did  daily.     It  is, 

'  See,  then,  in  Del.,  Liin.,  Alford. 
^  After  von  Hof. 


vii.  27.]  BUT   OFFERED   HIMSELF   ONCE.  265 

therefore,  iucorrrect  to  translate :  "  those  ('»?)  high  priests,"  ^  as 
is  done  witli  the  notion  that  such  contrast  is  intended.  The  pur- 
pose is  to  affirm,  that  Jesus  needed  not  daily  to  offer  up  sacrifices, 
as  might  be  thought  He  must  if  He  is  ever,  i.  c,  daily,  making 
intercession  for  His  own.^  As  expressing  the  kind  of  sacrifice 
that  His  intercession  required,  that  of  the  high  priest  on  the  great 
day  of  atonement  is  described.  It  tvas  needed  ;  and  Jesus  offered' 
it.^  But  He  did  it  once  for  all,  as  his  continued,  uuiutermitted 
intercession  shows. 

What  is  affirmed  in  this  verse  is  not  Avith  a  view  to  showing 
how  it  is  possible  for  Christ  to  be  continually  interceding.  It 
does  not  do  so,  e.  g.,  by  pointing  to  the  fact  that  the  high  priests 
as  sinful  men  needed,  as  often  as  they  interceded,  to  make  sacri- 
fice, whereas  Christ  as  sinless  could  make  sacrifice  once  for  all.* 
What  is  affirmed  is  an  inference  from  («)  the  fact  that  He  is  a 
perpetual  intercessor,  which  fact  has  been  already  proved  from 
His  Melchizedek  character,  according  to  which  He  is  priest  forever 
and  ever  lives ;  and  {b)  from  the  fact  that  He  has  entered  within 
the  vail,  and  there  is  and  will  continue  to  be.  For  He  entered 
to  stay  there  till  the  intercession  shall  no  more  be  needed.  The 
legal  high  priests  needed  only  to  sacrifice  once  for  the  yearly 
occasion  of  their  entering  the  Holiest  to  intercede.  But  they 
could  not  stay  there  ;  and  for  the  renewal  of  intercession  renewed 
sacrifice  was  needed.  All  is  different  in  the  case  of  Christ,  who 
"  entered  once  for  all  into  the  holy  place."  ^  Thus  the  present 
language  is  no  appeal  to  the  intrinsic  worth  of  Christ's  sacrifice, 
viz.,  a  sacrifice  of  Himself,  and  he  the  Son,  and  of  one  without 
sin,  as  something  that  was  sufficient  once  for  all,®  however  true 
such  considerations  are.  Nor  is  it  a  dogmatic  statement  of  this 
truth.  The  truth  that  He  made  a  saerijtee  once  for  all  is  an  obvi- 
ous inference  from  the  fact  that  lie  ever  lives  to  make  intercession, 
having  made  His  sacrifice. 

In  describing  the  sacrifice  needful  for  intercession,  "  the  Apostle 
uses  the  expression  wmyiper^,  not  Tzpoafiptiv ;   and  on  purpose. 


1  Vers.  Ifill,  1881.  "  Comp.  ix.  2o,  26.  '  v.  1-9. 

*  So  de  Wette,  Liin.  *  ix.  12.  ®  Against  <■.  (j.  Chrys.,  Lindsay. 


266  avaifipzvj,  -poacpipuv.  Fvii.  28. 

The  complement  of  Tzpodtpipsiv  is  rcD  »9£w;  ^   of  a.\>afipzv^  it  is  ^;ri  TO 

f^oaiaaTT^purj}  Thus  the  expression  itself  [avaipipztv)  precludes  our 
understanding  that  the  presentation  of  the  blood  of  expiation  in 
the  Holiest  of  all  is  meant  here.  In  avuifipsiv  the  oifering  is 
conceived  of  as  a  handing  over,  in  that  one  gives  his  own  away 
where  it  becomes  God's  own.  In  -poa^pipziv,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  thought  of  as  a  handing  in,  in  that  one  gives  that  God  may 
receive.  In  the  present  case  the  former  is  used  because  the 
Author  would  designate  the  offering  of  Jesus  as  a  self-surrender 
to  that  which  happens  with  the  oifering.  In  this  His  self-sacri- 
fice He  did  once  for  all  what  the  legal  high  priests  do  when  they 
first  offer  up  sacrifice  for  their  own  sins,  then  for  the  sins  of  the 
people,  and  thus  has  not  daily  need  to  do  it."^ 

That  Christ  did  what  corresponded  to  the  legal  high  priests' 
performance  in  offering  first  for  their  own  and  then  for  the  sins 
of  the  people,  the  Apostle  has  represented  v.  1-9  ;  and  there  as 
here  it  is  meant  that  He  did  so  in  the  way  that  was  possible  for 
one  who  was  "without  sin."  The  same  objections  are  urged 
against  this  view^  here  that  are  urged  at  v.  1-7.  But  the  expla- 
nations given  there  obviate  their  consideration  here. 

When  he  offered  up  ^  himself :  "  This  is  the  first  place  in  which 
the  thought,  that  Christ  is  not  only  our  high  priest,  but  also  the 
sacrifice  for  our  sins,  is  quite  clearly  expressed.  But  the  note, 
once  struck,  is  continually  sounded  again.  "  ® 

The  contrast  presented  between  Christ  and  the  legal  high 
priests,  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  latter,  is  now  sharpened  by  a 
statement  which,  as  the  For  shows,  explains  it. 

Ver.  28.  For  the  law  appointeth  men  high  priests  having  in- 
firmity ;  but  the  word  of  the  oath,  which  was  subsequent  to  the 
law,  a  Son  perfected  forever. 

If  both  clauses  of  this  verse  were  to  be  taken ''  as  referring  to 
Christ,  the  first  referring  to  what  He  is  as  antitype  of  the  Aaronic 

^  Comp.  e.  g.^  Num.  xxxi.  50 ;  Heb.  xi.  4 ;  Acts  vii.  42. 

^  Comp.  e.  g.,  Gen.  viii.  20;  Lev.  iv.  10;  James  ii.  21  (1  Pet.  ii.  24). 

3  von  Hof.  *  See  Del. 

*  We  read  hvtvkyKaq  with  the  Rec. ;  W.  and  H. ;  Liin  ;  v.  Hof. ;  Del. ;  against 
TzpoaEveynag  Tisch.  viii. 

*  Del.  7  with  Ebrard. 


vii.  28.]   OUR  HIGH  PEIEST  PERFECTED  FOREVER.       267 

high  priesthood,  and  the  second  to  what  He  is  as  Melcliizedek 
priest,  we  must  expect  to  read  "  a  man,"  '  and  not  men.  It  is 
evident  that  a  plurality  of  high  priests  is  contrasted  with  the  one 
Son,  and  their  infirmity  with  His  being  perfect  forever  more ;  and 
the  law  by  which  they  were  instituted,  with  the  oath  that  made 
the  Son  a  priest. 

The  recurrence  of  the  words  "high  priests,"  "appointed," 
"  infirmity,"  "  a  Son,"  "  perfect  forever,"  as  we  find  these  in  v. 
1-10,  shows  that  the  Author  deals  with  the  same  notions  as 
there,  and  the  words  must  have  the  same  meaning.  Infirmity 
is  that  which  makes  mere  men  liable  and  sure  to  sin,  and  also  to 
death  which  ends  their  functions.^  "  The  law  which  perfected 
nothing,"  ^  did  not  make  the  men  free  from  this  infirmity  whom 
it  appointed  high  priests.  And  the  offering  for  their  own  sins 
according  to  law,  left  them  still  having  infirmity.  Hence  the 
inferiority  of  the  high  priests  expressed  in  ver.  27.  But  the  word 
of  the  oath  which  was  subsequent  to  the  law,  appointed  a  high 
priest  of  a  superior  kind,  viz.,  a  Son  perfected  forever  more. 
The  oath,  and  that  it  was  subsequent  to  the  law,  which  denotes 
that  it  established  something  that  superseded  whatever  the  law 
enacted  to  meet  the  same  case ;  especially  the  express  substance 
of  the  oath  :  "  thou  art  a  priest  forever ; "  and  then,  that  we  see 
this  verified  in  a  Son,  which  brings  in  all  that  has  been  said  of 
a  Son*  who  was  perfected  forever  for  his  high-priestly  functions ; 
all  this  shows  how  in  His  very  institution  Christ  is  the  "  High 
Priest  that  became  us,"^  and  that  the  legal  high  priests  were  not 
such. 

Let  it  be  reiterated,  that  the  point  of  what  is  said  vers.  27,  28, 
is,  that  the  contrast  is  now  pressed  between  Christ  as  High  Priest 
and  the  legal  high  priests,  as  previous  to  ver.  26,  Clirist's  priest- 
hood after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  was  contrasted  with  the  le^al 
priesthood.  The  progress  of  thought  is,  that  what  is  true  of  the 
legal  priesthood,  involves  also  the  legal  liigh-priesthood  and  its 
efficacy.  The  common  failure  of  expositors  to  mark  the  distinct 
purpose  with  which  the  Apostle  speaks  of  priests  and  then  of 

'  Conip.  V.  1 .  2  Comp.  ii.  15  ;  v.  2  ;  vii.  23.  '  ver.  19. 

*i.  1-14.  ii.  14;  iii.  6;  v.  8,  9.  ^ver.  26. 


268  xetpdXiov  8i.  [viii.  1,  2. 

high  priests  has  led  to  great  confusion  here.  It  has  led,  as  the 
division  of  chapters  shows,  to  the  supposition  that  our  verses 
26-28  are  a  conclusion  of  the  foregoing  representations  that  set 
forth  the  superiority  of  Christ's  priesthood  to  the  Levitical.^  On 
the  contrary,  we  have  a  fresh  stadium  of  the  Apostle's  discourse. 
Recurring  again  to  Christ's  high-priesthood,  which  previous  to 
vi.  20,  he  has  illustrated  in  its  likeness  to  the  Aaronic  high-priest- 
hood, he  now  distinguishes  it  from  the  latter  in  respect  to  its 
unlikeness,  i.  e.,  its  superiority.  This  he  does  on  the  ground  of 
the  superiority  of  the  Melchizedek  priesthood  as  an  order  to  the 
legal  order  of  priesthood.  As  a  topic  so  resumed,  we  are  pre- 
pared to  expect  that  the  Author  will  not  dismiss  it  with  a  brief 
word  such  as  our  vers.  26-28.  And,  accordingly,  we  find  he 
does  not,  but  proceeds  to  amplify  the  contrast  between  Christ  as 
High  Priest  and  the  legal  high  priests,  to  the  effect  that  the  latter 
are  wholly  unable  to  meet  the  w^ants  of  sinners,  while  in  additional 
details,  he  shows  how  Christ  is  the  High  Priest  that  became  us. 

VIII.  1.  But  a  chief  thing,  besides  those  so-called  [high  priests] 
we  have  such  an  high  priest,  who  sat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne 
of  the  majesty,  in  the  heavens  2.  a  minister  of  the  Holies,  and  of 
the  true  tabernacle,  which  the  Lord  pitched,  not  man. 

It  is  to  von  Hofmann  that  we  are  indebted  for  observing  the 
progress  of  thought  in  the  context,  and  for  the  above  translation 
of  ver.  1,  that  it  demands,  and  which  has  been  treated  too  super- 
cilliously.^  The  construction  is  blamed  with  violently  sundering 
xs<pdhov  di  from  ^tti  ring  ktyoijA-^oig.  But  it  is  evident  that  expositors 
who  undertake  to  explain  how  they  are  to  be  combined,  fail  to 
do  so  satisfactorily.  If  they  take  the  reference  of  -/.sfdX.  to  the 
preceding  context  in  the  sense  of  "  in  brief,"  or  "  the  chief  thing," 
it  would  require  to  read  :  rb  dk  xtfdXmv  r&v  dprjiiirj'^wv.  Nor  can 
im  To'ig  hyofj.ivoig  be  rendered :  "  in  addition  to  what  has  been  said." 
The  difficulty  is  not  in  the  iTzc,  but  in  the  present  participle.  In 
order  to  do  justice  to  the  present  participle,  some  render :  "  in 
what  we  are  saying,"  or  "  say,"  or  "  concerning  which  we  discourse,^ 

*  so  e.  g.  Liin.,  who  makes  it  the  fourth  mark  of  superiority. 

*  e.  g.,  by  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford. 

3 Liin.;  deWette;  Del.;  Alford;  Davidson; Vers.  1881. 


viii.  1,  2.]  WE   HAVE   SUCH    AN   HIGH   PRIEST.  269 

without  adducing  elsewhere  a  corresponding  example  of  such  a 
combination  of  /.stfakwj  di,  or  even  showing  the  possibility  of 
this  adjunct,  which  as  to  substance,  is  superfluous,  and  as  a  matter 
of  language,  is  obscure."  ^ 

We  take  xs^dXiav  -  a  chief  thing,  with  most  expositors,  and  sup- 
pose the  Author  means,  that  in  the  high-priesthood  of  Christ,  as 
here  described,  especially  (ver.  2),  that  he  is  such  an  High  Priest 
in  the  heavens,  is  seen  the  chiefest  consequence  of  the  contrast 
already  established  in  general  in  regard  to  the  orders  of  priesthood. 
We  reject  the  rendering  "  the  sum,"  or  "  in  brief,"  because  noth- 
ing that  follows  can  properly  be  understood  to  represent  the  sum 
of  anything  that  has  been  or  is  said.  Thus  xscpdA.  Si  is  to  be 
taken  by  itself,  and  ^n).  r.  Xtyoij..  connects  with  what  follows ;  iru 
having  the  meaning  of  beside,'  or,  it  may  be,  of  "  along  with," 
as  ix.  10,  17,^  which  comes  to  the  same  thing  here.  To  nn^ 
Xsyoii.  =the  so-called,*  supply  dpyispsuaiv=''  high  priests  ; "  which 
is  natural,  not  only  from  the  antithesis  of  a  high  priest  presented 
in  this  verse,  but  also  from  that  already  presented  in  vii.  28. 
Were  the  dpiitptbav^  expressed,^  no  one  would  challenge  the  pro- 
priety of  the  sentence  or  differ  as  to  its  meaning.  To  one  that 
follows  closely  the  logical  connection  with  vii.  27,  28,  its  omis- 
sion has  no  awkwardness.  With  this  construction,  what  is  said 
in  ver.  1,  is  plain  and  needs  no  elucidation.  Only  we  may  ven- 
ture to  agree  with  those®  who  suppose  that  iy.aHi<7t\>  —  %2X  down, 
expresses  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  presence  in  heaven.  As  at 
i.  3,  the  same  expression  points  a  superiority  to  angels,  so  here 
it  points  a  superiority  to  the  earthly  high  priests.  Yet,  not  that 
it  expresses  greater  dignity  as  the  privilege  of  Christ.  It  points 
a  difference  that  makes  Him  a  better  high  priest  for  us.  It  pre- 
sents, under  another  expression,  the  Melchizedek  characteristic 
of  which  so  much  has  just  been  made,  viz.,  Christ  is  a  perpetual 
priest.  iJe  haa  entered  heaven  to  stay.  He  is  there  always  to  do 
what  He  entered  there  to  be  and  to  do. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  so  construed,  ver.  1,  even  more  than 

'  von  Hof.  ^  Comp.  Grimm.,  Lex.,  sitb.  voc.  n.  d, 

'So  von  Hof.  *  Xen.,  Anab.,  I.  ii.  13. 

*  Comp.,  1  Cor.  viii.  5,  6.  *  Alford,  Davidson,  etc. 


270  HE   ENTEEED    HEAVEN   TO    STAY.  [vlii.  1,  2. 

ver.  4,  (ovTwi/  ribv  ■!:po<sf£p6vnu)^')  ^  aifords  evidence  that  our  epistle 
was  written  while  the  temple  service  was  still  maintained. 

The  Apostle,  of  course,  does  not  mean  that  ice  have  and  are  to 
have  the  high  priests  so  called,  and  a  high  priest  in  the  heavens. 
We  have  (i.  e.,  the  readers  had)  both,  but  we  see  in  the  latter 
what  must  lead  to  the  surrender  of  all  trust  in  the  efficacy  of  the 
former,  because  of  what  we  see  him  to  be,  which  for  the  present 
is  denoted  by  where  we  see  Him,  viz.,  in  the  heavens,  which  has 
the  emphasis.^  He  is  a  minister  of  the  Holies  and  of  the  true 
tabernacle  which  the  Lord  pitched  not  man.  In  saying  this,  the 
Apostle  interprets  the  meaning  of  the  fact  that  Christ  has  "  sat 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne,"  i.  e.,  is  in  heaven.  The 
same  thing  has  already,  vi.  19,  been  interpreted  as  an  "entering 
within  the  vail,  a  forerunner  for  us."  It  completes  the  idea  of 
Christ,  a  High  Priest,  ever  living  to  intercede  for  His  own.  It 
represents  Him  as  doing  what  a  high  priest  in  active  discharge 
of  his  functions  does ;  he  ministers.  He  does  this  in  the  place 
and  about  the  place  where  such  ministry  is  discharged,  viz., 
the  Holies.  But  in  His  case  it  is  in  the  heavens,  where  He  has 
the  functions  and  place  that  the  legal  high  priests  have  on  earth. 
As  such  the  Apostle  calls  it  the  true  tabernacle,  not  in  distinction 
from  a  false,  but  from  a  tabernacle  that  was  only  the  representa- 
tion of  the  true.^ 

By  von  Hofmann,  iv  ml?  oupw^nig  is  rendered  as  connected  with 
ribv  dyiiuv  Xz^irtwpyo'i,  because  it  is  not  ivhere  our  high  priest  is, 
that  is  emphasized,  but  where  He  is  our  high  priest ,  that  is  where 
He  does  high-priestly  service.  Thus  in  the  heavens  has  an 
emphasis.     In  defense  of  the  constnuction  he  says  : 

"  It  is  objected  that,  iv  r.  odpav.  makes  no  proper  beginning  of 
a  sentence,  which  is  something  I  do  not  understand  ;  or  that  the 
rythmical  balance  of  vers.  1  and  2  would  thereby  be  marred, 
whereas  just  the  contrary  is  true ;  or  that  it  must  then  read  :  twv 
dyiujv  -wv  iv  T.  <ivpa<^.,  whereby  the  expressive  emphasis  of  the  h 
T.  ovpav.  would  disappear ;  or  that  it  is  understood  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  sanctuary  where  Christ  ministers  is  the  heavenly 
one,  if  He  has  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  whereas  even 
'  Comp.  Liin.  ■'  von  Hof.  ^  Liin.,  von  Hof. 


Viii.  1,  2.]  IN    THE    HEAVENS    A    MINISTER.  271 

r/;?  axr^vr;?  is  not  without  its  clause  of  cxacter  definition/  which 
sorae^  then  would  have  supplied  to  rwi/  dyiwy.  As  t>;9  (rxr^'^r^'s  has 
its  exacter  definition  [t/)?  «/jj .'>£>;; v]  on  which  rests  the  empliasis, 
so,  also,  must  twv  ayiuiv  have  something  that  is  emphasized  mark- 
ing antithesis.  The  legal  high  priest  is  minister  of  the  Holies, 
but  on  earth ;  and  a  minister  of  the  Tabernacle  is  he  also,  but 
not  of  the  true  tabernacle,"  This  exposition  justifies  us  in 
accepting  the  construction  in  question.^  But,  while  assenting  to 
that,  wo  may  refuse  to  follow  the  opinion,^  that  the  Apostle  sig- 
nifies different  things  by  the  Holies  in  the  heavens  and  the  true 
tabernacle.  They  are  synonomous,^  in  the  sense  that  they  desig- 
nate the  locality  where  our  high  priest  ministers.  The  two  are 
one  as  Pharoah's  two  dreams  were  one.  They  empliasize  the 
contrast  between  the  earthly  locality  where  the  legal  high  priest 
ministers,  and  the  heavenly  where  our  High  Priest  ministers.  The 
view,  that  by  the  true  tabernacle  is  meant  the  glorified  body  of 
Christ,*'  is  in  conflict  with  the  parallel  pointed  above,  that  the 
legal  high  priest  is  minister  of  a  tabernacle,  but  not  the  true 
tabernacle.  The  tent  where  Christ  ministers  must  be  as  objec- 
tive to  him  as  the  tent  where  the  legal  high  priest  ministers  is  to 
the  latter.  The  notion  that  the  Apostle  means  different,  though 
closely  related  things  by  the  Holies  and  the  tent,  rests  upon  the 
assumption  that  by  llyia  =  Holies,  he  means  "  Holy  of  holies." 
But  at  ix.  2,  he  expressly  defines  the  Holies  to  be  the  anterior 
tent.  At  that  place  we  shall  find,  that  he  uses  the  same  word  in 
that  context  with  only  that  meaning ;  and  that  nothing  there 
justifies  the  notion  that  a  Holy  of  holies,  as  distinguished  from 
a  Holies,  has  any  existence  in  the  arrangements  of  the  heavenly 
sanctuary. 

If  We  have  properly  understood  the  scope  of  vers.  1,  2,  viz., 
that  it  is  to  point  with  emphasis  to  the  heavens  as  the  place  where 
Christ  is  High  Priest  and  so  ministers,  then  the  vers.  3,  4,  are 
meant  to  show  why  the  sphere  of  His  high-priestly  ministry  mi(st 
be  heaven.^     This  explains  the  logical  connection  expressed  by 

'  Against  Liin.,  and  Del.  ^  e.  g.,  Eleek,  Ebrard,  Liin.,  etc. 

'  Against  Alford.  *  Of  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Owen,  Alford. 

"  fcso  Liin.  ®  Owen,  vun  Iluf.,  Alford.  '  C'omp.  Del. 


272  HE   MUST   HAVE  AN   OFFERING.  [viii.  3. 

For.  The  argument,  like  that  of  v.  1-5,  is  an  inference  from  what 
is  true  of  every  high  priest  to  what  must  therefore  be  true  of 
Christ.     The  premise  for  the  inference  is  : 

Ver.  3.  For  every  high  priest  is  appointed  to  offer  both  gifts 
and  sacrifices ;  whence  it  [is]  necessary  also  for  this  one  to  have 
something  which  he  offers. 

The  identity  of  the  language  of  the  first  clause  of  our  verse 
with  V.  1,  sounds  like  reiteration  for  the  purpose  of  resuming  the 
representation  concerning  Christ  as  High  Priest  where  it  was 
broken  oif  at  v.  10.  That  representation  only  amplifies  the 
part  of  Christ's  ministry  that  corresponds  to  what  every  high 
priest  did  when  he  offered  for  himself  in  view  of  his  own  infirmi- 
ties, before  offering  for  the  people's  sins.  What  Christ  did  to 
correspond  to  the  latter  offering  was  mentioned  in  a  summary 
way  without  interpretation:  "and  having  been  perfected  he 
became  the  author  of  everlasting  salvation  to  those  that  obey 
Him,  having  been  saluted  by  God  a  high  priest  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedek  "  (v.  9,  10). 

In  resuming  his  topic  vi.  20,  after  the  digression  v.  11 — vi.  19, 
the  Apostle  elaborated  the  truth  implied  in  Christ's  being  saluted 
high  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedeh.  This  he  has  just  con- 
cluded vii.  28,  by  the  declaration :  "  The  law  appointed  men 
priests  having  infirmity,  but  the  word  of  the  oath  that  was  sub- 
sequent to  the  law,  a  Son  perfected  forever."  We  observe  that 
this  expression  comes  round  again  to  that  of  v.  9,  10.  This  is 
true  not  only  of  "  perfected  "  and  "  Melchizedek,"  but  also  of 
the  "  infirmity  "  of  the  earthly  high  priests  which,  at  v.  7,  8,  was 
interpreted  as  it  found  correspondence  in  Christ.  It  is  our  per- 
fected High  Priest,  viz.,  our  High  Priest  in  his  Melchizedek 
character,  that  is  presented  as  the  topic  in  vers.  1,2.  As  the 
passages  just  quoted  show,  it  is  our  High  Priest  with  infirmities 
laid  aside,  and  now  perfected  forever.  It  is  now  in  place  to 
interpret  what  He  does  that  corresponds  to  the  earthly  high 
priests'  ministry  when  offering  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  the  sins  of 
others  after  having  first  offered  for  themselves.  And  this  is 
what,  from  the  present  on  to  x.  18,  the  Apostle  actually  does. 
Noticing  these  things,  we  may  assume  that  the  first  clause  of  our 


Viii.  n.]  AS    EVERY    HIGH    PRIEST    MUST.  273 

ver.  3  is  actually  intended  for  what  \vc  have  said  it  sounds  like. 
It  is  reiteration  in  brief  of  v.  1,  for  the  purpose  of  resuming 
the  representation  of  the  correspondence  in  our  high  priest  to 
what  is  true  of  every  high  priest,  and  interpreting  that  which 
was  left  uninterpreted.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  progress 
of  thought  just  noted  serves  to  corroborate  the  interpretation  of 
V.  7,  8,  given  above. 

Appealing,  then,  to  what  is  true  of  every  high  priest,  viz., 
that  he  is  appointed  to  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  the  inference 
is  established  that  Christ  must  have  the  same  functions.  The 
meaning  now  is,  offering  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  the  sins  of  the 
people  and  as  ministering  for  them.  In  regard  to  gifts  and  sac- 
rifices, we  may  refer  to  what  was  said  in  explanation  under  v.  1. 
In  regard  to  r.poatfijizv^,  we  see  from  the  context  that  it  refers  to 
something  Christ  does  in  heaven,  and,  thus,  that  the  Tzpoatp.  of 
the  earthly  high  priests  must  correspondingly  be  what  they  do  in 
the  earthly  Holies.  We  observe,  then,  a  propriety  in  the  use 
of  Ttpn(T(fip£iv  here,  instead  of  avafipeiv  as  used  vii.  27,  consistent 
with  the  diiferent  significations  of  the  words  that  were  explained 
there.  The  offering  here  does  not  mean  offering  up  sacrifice,  but 
what  was  done  when  sacrifice  had  been  offered.  And  the  double 
expression  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  requires  us  to  think  of  some- 
thing more,  if  not  something  else  than  presentation  of  the  sacri- 
fice to  God.  As  a  matter  of  fact  and  observation,  we  notice  in 
the  progress  of  the  epistle,  that  neither  in  what  he  says  of  Christ, 
nor  by  what  he  says  of  the  earthly  high  priests,  does  the  Apostle 
actually  express  or  imply  that  Christ  offers  His  sacrifice  to  God 
in  heaven,  or  offers  His  blood  there.  He  enters  heaven  by  His 
own  blood,  as  the  high  priest  enters  the  Holies  by  other  blood 
not  His  own.^  He  offers  Himself  for  us  in  the  presence  of  God 
in  the  Holies  not  made  with  hands,  as  the  earthly  high  priest 
offers  himself  for  the  people  in  the  earthly  Holies.^  As  the 
copies  of  the  heavenly  things  were  cleansed  by  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood,  so  (the  Apostle  lets  us  infer  his  meaning)  the  heav- 
enly things  themselves  are  cleansed  by  the  sprinkling  of  His 
blood.'     Such  are  the  expressions  that  help  us  to  give  precision 

»ix.  12.  *ix.  24.  Mx.  23. 

18 


274  HE   CANNOT    OFFER    ON    EARTH  [viii    4. 

to  the  Apostle's  meaning  when  he  speaks  of  our  High  Priest  need- 
ing to  have  something  to  offer.  What  is  clear  here  is,  that  it  is 
affirmed,  that  an  offering  is  essential  to  our  High  Priest,  as  to 
every  high  priest.  It  is  equally  clear  that  the  present  expression 
does  not  mean  that  Christ  offers  up  a  sacrifice  in  heaven,  and  the 
present  text  is  of  no  use  in  itself  for  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the 
"  unbloody  sacrifice."  Nor  does  our  expression  intimate  that 
Christ  makes  continual  sacrifice  in  heaven.  What  is  clearly 
affirmed  is  sufficient  for  the  Apostle's  argument,  which  is  meant 
to  corroborate  the  representation  of  vers.  1,  2,  that  Christ  is  our 
High  Priest  in  heaven.  It  is  the  first  premise  to  show  that  He 
miist  minister  there.  He  must  have  something  to  offer,  that  is 
first  premise.  The  second  is,  He  cannot  do  this  on  earth. 
That  it  must  be  in  heaven  follows  as  the  consequence.  The 
second  premise  is  presented  in  the  form  of  showing  why  He 
cannot  so  minister  on  earth. 

Ver.  4.  If  then  lie  were  on  earth  he  would  not  even  be  priest, 
there  being  those  who  offer  gifts  according  to  law. 

There  is  no  such  emphasis  here  as  though  it  were  said  :  he 
would  not  be  even  a  priest,  let  alone  high  priest.*  But  priest  is 
the  genus,  and  denying  that  excludes  all  priestly  character  what- 
ever. The  Apostle  recognizes  that  the  legal  priests  w^ere  the 
ones  to  do  priestly  ministry  on  earth,  and  no  others.  As  they 
did  this  according  to  law,  it  would  be  against  law  for  another  to 
minister  in  a  priestly  way  on  earth.  This  excluded  Christ  from 
doing  so,  and  thus,  were  He  on  earth,  He  were  no  interceding 
priest.  Hence,  when  prepared  (perfected)  by  the  necessary  sac- 
rifice, He  entered  heaven,  there  to  minister. 

It  is  profitable  to  remark,  that  if  this  reasoning  is  true  for 
Christ,  it  is  equally  so  for  any  other.  This  text,  therefore, 
excludes  the  notion  of  the  Christian  ministry  being  a  priesthood 
for  God's  people.     The  disciple  is  not  greater  than  his  Lord. 

To  be  a  priest,  and  thus  a  high  priest,  actually  ministering  as 
Intercessor,  Christ  must  be  away  from  earth,  i.  e.,  in  the  heavens, 
as  represented  vers.  1,  2. 

To  the  statement  of  the  exclusive  right  of  the  legal  priests  to 

^  Against  Liin.,  Del. ;  with  Davidson. 


Viii.  5.]  THERE    BEING    PRIESTS    FOR   THAT.  275 

minister  on  earth,  the  Apostle  adds  a  representation  description 
of  their  ministry. 

Ver.  5  a.  Who  serve  the  copy  and  shadow  of  the  heavenly 
things,  even  as  Moses  is  warned  when  about  to  make  the  taber- 
nacle. 

Aurpeuiiv  means  serving,^  or  being  the  servants  of  the  objects 
expressed  in  the  datives. 

This  is  said  to  enhance  the  notion  of  the  exclusive  right  and 
dignity  of  their  service,^  and  not  to  mark  its  inferiority  to  the 
ministry  of  Christ  in  the  true  tabernacle.^  Not  in  contrast  with 
the  sanctuary  where  Christ  ministers,  but  in  contrast  with  every 
other  earthly  sanctuary,  the  Apostle  affirms  that  what  the  legal 
priests  serve  is  the  copy  and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things.* 
Therefore  nowhere  on  earth  but  where  that  copy  is  can  there  be  a 
priestly  ministry,  and  no  other  on  earth  but  the  legal  priest  can  do 
priestly  work.  Thus  the  reason  introduced  by  for  ver.  3  is  com- 
pleted. 

That  the  legal  sanctuary  was  such  a  copy  of  the  heavenly  things 
the  Apostle  proves  by  a  reference  to  Exod.  xxv.  40,  introduced 
by  :  For,  saith  He,  meaning  God  so  said  to  Moses. 

Ver.  5  h.  For  see,  saith  he,  thou  shalt  make  all  things  according 
to  the  pattern  that  was  shewed  thee  in  the  mount. 

Here  it  is  probable  that  the  opa  =  see  is  not  meant  in  the  sense 
of  "  see  to  it ; "  but,  like  the  original  Hebrew  {r\p^\  nxni),  it 
means  :  see  and  make  (jTonjffst?)  as  was  shewed  there.*  What 
Moses  saw  was  itself  a  type  of  the  things  in  heaven.  What  he 
made  was  a  shadow  of  a  shadow.® 

Having  set  before  the  reader  the  chief  thing  resulting  from 
Christ's  being  high  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizodok,  viz., 
that  beside  the  so-called  high  priests  we  have  "  such "  an  high 
priest  in  the  heavens  and  ministering  there  ;  and  having  shown 
that  He  could  not  be  a  priest  on  earth  consistently  witli  ordi- 
nances that  were  of  God's  appointment,  the  Apostle  proceeds  to 
affirm  that  the  ministry  he  has  is  {pta<fnpwripa<iy  more  excellent 
than,  as  well  a.s  diffi^rent  from  that  which  the  priests  discharged 

'  Comp.  xiii.  10.         ^  von  Ilof.         ^  Against  Liin.,  Del.         *  So  von  Hof. 
*>  So  von  Hof.     Comp.  Biittm.  Gram.  p.  242.         ®  Alford.      ^  Comp.  i.  4. 


276  HIS    A    BETTER   MINISTRY.  [viii  6. 

on  earth.  The  3i  of  ver.  6  answers  to  the  /liv  of  ver.  4.  The 
now  is  logical,  not  temporal,  and  introduces  a  statement.  "  It 
means  as  things  in  fact  are."  ^ 

Ver.  6.  But  now  hatli  he  obtained  a  more  distinguished  minis- 
try by  as  much  as  he  is  also  mediator  of  a  better  covenant,  which 
hath  been  enacted  upon  better  promises. 

To  the  thing  affirmed  is  conjoined  a  reference  to  fact  in  proof. 
The  present  reasoning  appears  to  some  a  mere  vice  versa  of  vii. 
20-22,  if  not  a  case  of  actually  reasoning  in  a  circle,  viz.,  that 
as  in  vii.  20-22  the  Author  proves  the  superiority  of  the  cove- 
nant from  the  greater  rank  of  the  priest,  so  here  he  infers  the 
superior  rank  of  His  priestly  ministry  from  the  greater  excel- 
lence of  the  covenant  of  which  He  is  the  Mediator.^  But  we 
found,  at  vii.  20-22,  that  the  thing  proved  was,  that  the  cove- 
nant was  better  than  the  law  because  of  the  perpetuity  guar- 
anteed to  it  by  the  priest,  in  that  he  is  a  priest  forever.  What  is 
proved  here  is  that  our  high  priest  has  a  more  distinguished  or 
excellent  ministry  because  of  the  betterness  of  the  covenant  of 
which  he  is  Mediator.  To  prove  the  betterness  of  the  covenant 
as  perpetual  from  the  forever-priesthood  of  the  surety,  and  to 
prove  the  betterness  of  the  priestly  ministry  from  the  contents 
of  the  covenant  that  determines  that  ministry,  is  not  reasoning  in 
a  circle^  nor  is  it  a  case  of  mere  vice  versa.  The  enduring  great- 
ness of  Great  Britain  makes  a  protectorate  by  her  better  than 
one  assumed  by  France.  Whatever  it  is,  it  is  sure  to  last.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  terms  of  the  compact,  by  which  Great  Brit- 
ain exercises  her  protectorate,  may  make  Great  Britain's  admin- 
istration of  the  protectorate  the  beneficent  thing.  The  latter 
illustrates  the  Apostle's  meaning  here,  where  Christ's  high-priestly 
ministry  is  compared  with  the  high  priests  so-called.  Beside  the 
place,  viz.,  the  heavens,  where  He  ministers,  which  has  been  men- 
tioned, the  Apostle  appeals  to  the  intent  and  effect  of  that  min- 
istry. It  is  expressed  in  a  covenant,  and  Christ  is  the  Mediator 
of  that  covenant,  which  means  not  only  that  He  gives  it  effect,  but 
also  that  to  give  it  effect  is  the  special  function  of  His  ministry.  And 
that  He  is  the  Mediator  of  the  covenant  in  question  marks  a 

^  Davidson.  ^  So  Liin. 


viii.  7.]  MEDIATOR  OP  A   BETTER   COVENANT.  277 

point  of  His  superiority  to  the  legal  high  priests,  who  M^ere  not 
the  mediators  of  the  legal  covenant,  but  only  the  ministers  under 
it.^  The  special  quality  of  betterness  in  the  covenant  referred  to 
is  mentioned.  It  is  enacted  on  better  promises.  The  comparison 
is  with  the  covenant  given  through  Moses.^ 

The  terms  used  here  show  that  it  is  no  covenant  in  the  sense 
of  an  agreement  between  parties.  It  proceeds  only  from  one, 
viz.,  God,  and  is  determined  by  Him.  It  determines  the  rela- 
tions that  are  to  be  between  Him  who  gives  it  and  those  who 
have  the  benefit  of  it.  Hence  the  propriety  of  the  expression 
vv^oiwHirr^Tat  =  is  enacted,  though  the  cov^enant  conveys  promises. 
Promises,  in  the  plural  refers  to  the  particulars  of  the  promise 
cited  from  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34,  as  found  below,  vers.  10-12. 

Having  said  that  the  covenant  that  determines  Christ's  high- 
priestly  ministry  is  better  than  the  one  under  which  the  legal 
high  priests  ministered,  the  Apostle  justifies  the  assertion. 

Ver.  7.  For  if  that  first  was  faultless,  then  would  not  place  have 
been  sought  for  a  second. 

This  is  not  intended  to  show  wherein  the  second  is  better^ 
nor  is  the  following  passage  from  Jeremiah  adduced  to  show 
this,  though  it  contains  what  does  show  it :  "  The  Apostle  only 
justifies  his  having  said  that  it  is  better.  For  he  only  says,  if  there 
had  been  nothing  to  object  to  the  former,  then  there  would  not  have 
been  sought  place  for  a  second.  And  this  expression  does  not  un- 
consciously blend  two  different  statements :  <>dx  ilv  deuripa?  iZyjTsno, 
and  S^u-^pa?  oijx  r/v  aV  roTzog  ;*  but  it  is  intentionally  so  constructed 
in  order  to  say  that,  after  the  first  assumed  its  place,  where,  as 
instituted  by  God,  it  stood  by  right,  a  second  could  not  other- 
wise find  room,  unless  there  were  another  place  not  occupied  by 
the  first,  where  it  might  come  to  stand,  which  was  only  possible 
if  it  would  accomplish  something  that  the  other  did  not.  But  that 
in  the  Scriptures  room  is  actually  sought  for  a  second,  the  Apostle 
proves  by  citing  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34.     He  introduces  the  citation  by  : 

^  Comp.  Del  *  See  Exod.  vi.  1—8 ;  and  comp.  our  ver.  9. 

'  Against  Liin.,  Alford, 

*  "  A  second  would  not  have  been  sought,"  and  "  there  was  no  place  for  a 
second ; "  against  Ebrard ;  Liin. 


278  THE   OLD   AND   THE   NEW.  [viii,  8-12. 

Yer.  8.  (a).  For  finding  fault  with  them,  he  saith: 

It  is  erroneously  supposed  that  tlie  Apostle  proceeds  to  prove 
his  statement  that  the  first  covenant  was  not  without  fault, 
whereas  For  can  only  connect  with  the  second  and  not  the  first 
clause  of  ver.  7.  And  this  error  led  to  a  second,  in  which  abrui^ 
is  ynnedto  Xiysc  ^  instead  of  to  ;jLe/j.f('i/xevu^,  as  its  position  requires,^ 
although  it  is  admitted  that  it  is  then  useless.  Just  this  is  sig- 
nificant for  the  Ajjostle,  that  in  a  context  of  the  Scripture  which 
is  cited  as  God's  written  word,  where  God  reproaches  those  put 
under  the  first  covenant  with  their  unfaithfulness,  He  does  not 
declare  His  purpose  to  maintain  that  covenant,  but  that  he  will 
give  another,  and  of  a  different  sort."  ^ 

Ver.  8.  (b).  Behold  there  come  days,  saith  the  Lord,  and  I  will 
accomplish  upon  the  house  of  Israel  and  upon  the  house  of  Judah  a 
new  covenant,  9.  not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with 
their  fathers  in  the  day  of  my  taking  their  hand  to  lead  them  forth 
out  of  the  land  of  Egjrpt,  for  they  remained  not  in  my  covenant,  and 
I  neglected  them,  saith  the  Lord.  lO.  For  [But]  this  is  the  covenant 
that  I  will  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days, 
saith  the  Lord,  putting  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  upon  their 
heart  will  I  write  them,  and  I  wUl  be  to  them  for  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  for  a  people,  ll.  And  they  shall  not  teach  each  one 
his  fellow  citizen  and  each  one  his  brother,  saying:  Know  the 
Lord ;  for  [but]  all  shall  know  me  from  the  least  to  the  greatest  of 
them.  12.  For  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  iniquities,  and  their  sins 
will  I  remember  no  more. 

As  has  been  said,  this  lengthy  citation  is  made  in  proof  of 
just  one  point,  which,  also,  the  Author  clinches  by  the  comment 
of  ver.  13.  The  passage  does  not,  therefore,  call  for  any  com- 
ment in  detail,  but  only  that  we  should  note  wherein  it  is  proof 
in  point.  Let  the  following  observations  make  the  pointedness 
clearer.  "  First,  it  is  to  be  noted  that :  For  (ore)  they  remained 
not  in  my  covenant  and  I  neglected  them,  saith  the  Lord  (ver  9  b.) 
forms  a  parenthesis,  consisting  of  a  premise  and  conclusion ;  then 
second,  that  the  following  ore  (ver.  10),  as  the  '3  of  the  original 
text,  being  opposed  to  the  foregoing  negative  sentence,  has  the 

^  See  e.  g.  de  Wette,  Liin.;  Bleek,  Kurtz. 

^  Comp.  2  Mace.  ii.  7.  '  von  Hof. 


viii.  13.]  I   WILL   BE   MERCIFUL.  279 

force  of  a  '  but ' ;  and  finally,  third,  that  the  same  is  true  of  the 
tJrc  (ver.  11)  that  opposes  the  aU  shall  know  me,  to  the  foregoing 
negative ;  that  on  the  other  hand  on  (ver  1 2)  in  :  For  I  will  be 
merciful  to  their  iniquities  belongs  to  the  total  promise  as  assign- 
ing a  reason,  and  not  to  the  all  shall  know  me  alone  and  particu- 
larly, with  which  it  would  stand  in  no  immediate  connection  as 
a  reason.  Did  Jehovah  not  forgive  his  people  what  they  had 
sinned  under  the  law,  he  would  not  enter  into  this  new  relation 
with  them  here  described.  The  establishment  of  this  new  order 
of  things  is  the  actual  proof  of  his  forgiving  their  sins,  and  the 
forgiveness  makes  the  new  order  possible.  Because  he  proposes 
to  forgive  His  people,  he  makes  room  for  the  establishment  of  a 
relation  to  Him  which  is  not  subject,  as  the  former,  to  be  dis- 
turbed by  sinning,  because  the  law  of  their  life  is  no  more  out- 
wardly prescribed,  but  is  inscribed  in  their  hearts.  But  the 
Apostle  meant  neither  the  forgiveness  of  sins  nor  the  inwardness 
of  the  law,  when  he  mentioned  the  promises,  with  reference  to 
which  the  divine  dispensation  that  Jesus  mediated  for  the  Chris- 
tian is  made  the  law  of  the  Church.^  For  the  establishment  of 
the  latter  just  consist  in  this,  that  God  gets  Himself  a  Church 
that  carries  His  will  in  the  heart,  and  the  promises  must  be  just 
as  distinct  from  this  new  legislation  as  they  were  distinguished 
from  that  of  Moses.  As  the  latter  promised  tlie  people  that 
they  should  be  God's  people  in  the  Holy  Land  if  they  kept  God's 
law,  so  here  the  Church  that  makes  His  will  their  will  is  prom- 
ised everlasting  life,  which  ix.  15  is  called  'the  promise  of  the 
eternal  inheritance.'  The  Scripture  citation  is  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  saying  what  are  the  better  promises  of  the  new  divine 
dispensation,  but  only  to  prove  that  room  is  sought  for  a  new 
and  different  dispensation.  Accordingly,  having  made  the  cita- 
tion, the  Apostle  merely  adds  :  "  ^ 

Ver.  13,  In  that  he  saith :  A  new  [covenant]  he  hath  made  the 
first  old.  But  that  which  becometh  old  and  waxeth  aged  is  nigh 
unto  vanishing  away. 

This  conclusion  is  drawn  so  forcibly  that  comment  can  only 
weaken  its  impression.     We  give  the  usual  rendering.     Yet  the 

'  Against  Bleek,  de  Wette,  Liin.,  Kurz,  etc.  *  von  Hof, 


280  TRAITS   OF   THE   FIRST   COVENANT.  [ix.  1. 

language  of  the  Apostle  appears  even  more  expressive,  if  we 
take  the  admissible  rendering  of  von  Hofmann  :  But  that  which 
becomes  antiquated  also  grows  aged,  nigh  to  vanishing  away.  "  It 
is  common  to  take  to  Tzakaiobiisvov  xai  yrjpdaxov  together  as  sub- 
ject of  lyylxi  aipaviffiiuu.  But  the  foregoing  sentence  yields  only 
the  subject  to  Tzakaioufievov;  and  TzaXatooaf^ai  and  yr^pdaxetv  are  dis- 
tinguishable notions.  HaXai6v  is  something  whose  time  is  gone 
by  ;  yvjpdffxov  what  has  its  end  in  view.  Thus  the  latter  signifies 
the  same  as  iyylx^  d(fWH<jiwu  that  is  added  assyndetically  as  expla- 
natory, and  is  like  its  predicate,  and  thus  zat',  as  in  2  Tim.  iii.  16, 
is  not  "  and  "  but  also.^ 

In  the  foregoing  chapter  the  Apostle  has  emphasized  {xz<pdXaio^ 
that  Jesus,  being  such  an  high  priest  as  the  Melchizedek  attributes 
make  Him,  is  a  minister  in  heaven,  which  the  Apostle  calls  the 
Holies,  the  true  tent,  which  God  pitched,  not  man,  (viii.  1,  2). 
Following  this  with  considerations  that  show  why  the  high 
priestly  ministry  of  Jesus  must  not  be  on  earth  (viii.  3-5),  he 
affirms  the  difference  and  superiority  of  His  ministry,  viz.,  that 
He  is  mediator  of  a  new  and  better  covenant  than  the  old  (viii.  6), 
adding  proof  of  the  fact  from  prophecy  that  foretold  the  event 
(viii.  7-13). 

In  chapter  ix.  he  considers  details  comprehended  in  the 
contrasts  of  the  foregoing  chapter.  The  two  covenants,  the 
two  places  of  discharging  the  ministry  that  the  covenants  demand, 
viz.,  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  the  ministry  itself  of  the  so-called 
high  priests  and  of  our  High  Priest ;  such  are  the  subjects,  with 
the  aim  of  showing  that  the  priestly  ministry  under  the  old  cove- 
nant must  yield  to  that  of  the  new.  As  in  treating  of  Melchiz- 
edek, so  here,  the  Author  begins  with  "  the  elements  of  the  be- 
ginning of  the  oracles  of  God." 

IX.  1.  Now  indeed  the  first  [covenant]  had  also  ordinances  of 
service  and  the  worldly  sanctuary. 

It  is  obvious  that  "  covenant "  ^  is  to  be  supplied  here,  because 
the  covenants  have  just  been  the  subject  of  extended  remark  and 
of  contrast  with  each  other.     What  is  affirmed  here  is  with  a 

'  von  Hof. 

"  aKJtvfi  -  "  tent "  of  the  Eecept.  is  rejected. 


ix.  2-5.]  THE    ELEMENTS   OF   THE  SUBJECT.  281 

tone  of  concession/  and  the  xai  —  also,  expresses  that  what  is  con- 
ceded to  the  first  covenant  is  what  has  been  affirmed  of  the  second. 
This  refers  us  to  viii.  2,  and  requires  us  to  have  in  view  what 
was  there  affirmed.^  The  concession,  however,  is  introduced  by 
{j.h  =  indeed,  that  prepares  the  reader  for  a  following  :  but,  which 
we  accordingly  find  at  ver.  6,^  and  where  considerations  are 
pressed  that  detract  from  the  seeming  importance  of  the  conces- 
sions.* The  Apostle  does  not  seek  to  make  an  impression  by 
understating  the  facts.  He  lets  them  have  the  benefit  of  their 
full  value.  The  service  in  question  were  identified  with  the 
first  covenant,  and  as  such  they  were  ordained,  i.  e.,  were  juris  dlvini. 
There  was  also  the  sanctuary,  with  its  worldly  character,  which 
means  the  same  as  is  meant  viii.  4  by  "  on  earth."  *  If  what  is 
affirmed  is  in  the  tone  of  concession,  we  need  not  suppose  that 
worldly  is  added  in  the  way  of  detraction,  as  reminding  that  it 
was  only  temporal.®  It  is  rather  reiteration  of  the  sentiment  of 
viii.  4,  5,  as  explained  above.  It  is  no  reason  why  the  Author 
should  not  affirm  here  that  the  first  covenant  had  a  worldly 
sanctuary,  that  he  has  so  recently  affirmed  it  viii.  5  ;  and  this  can 
be  no  reason  for  taking  t«  re  Sycov  xotr/icx6v,  not  as  object,  but  as  a 
correlative  subject  with  rj  TZfxvrrjJ  The  same  reasoniug  would 
apply   to   dixmcufiara  Xarpsiag,  for  that    reiterates   the    o^toiv  twv 

Tzpoff(f£fK')vzu)'/  y.ard  iiofiov  rd  dcZpa. 

The  Author  proceeds  in  the  same  spirit  of  concession  to  de- 
scribe the  tabernacle  with  its  contents,  disguising  none  of  the 
glory. 

Ver.  2.  For  a  tabernacle  was  prepared,  the  first,  in  which 
[are]  the  candlesticks  and  the  table,  and  the  setting-  forth  of  the 
loaves ;  which  is  called  Holies.  3.  But  after  the  second  vail,  a 
tabernacle  which  is  called  Holy  of  holies ;  4.  having  a  golden  altar 
of  incense,  and  the  ark  of  the  covenant  overlaid  round  about  with 
gold,  in  which  [is]  a  golden  pot  holding  the  manna,  and  Aaron's 
rod  that  budded,  and  the  tables  of  the  covenant,  5.  and  above  it  cher- 
ubim of  glory  overshadowing  the  mercy  seat ;  of  which  things  we 
cannot  now  speak  severally. 

1  Liin.,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Lindsay.  'Against  Lindsay. 

'  Liin.,  Del.,  von  Ilof.  *  von  Hof.  "  Liin. 

8  With  Angus ;  against  Liin.,  Del.,  von  Hof.  '  Against  von  Hof. 


282  THE   HOLY   OF   HOLIES  [ix.  2-5. 

It  is  out  of  place  to  comment  on  the  things  here  enumerated. 
That  belongs  to  Old  Testament  exegesis.  It  is  only  iraporta,nt 
to  notice  the  Author's  manner  of  mentioning  them.  It  is  expe- 
dient to  supply  "  are  "  and  "  is,"  instead  of  "  were  "  and  "  was  " 
(vers.  4,  7)/  because  it  is  consonant  with  Xi^srat,  k'^ouaa  (bis), 
xaraffxcd^ovra,  and  because  the  Author's  farther  discourse  ver.  6, 
so  uses  the  present  tense ;  in  what  way  will  be  there  explained. 
The  Author's  intention  of  disguising  none  of  the  glory  of  the 
things  pertaining  to  the  first  covenant  appears  in  enumerating  so 
many  of  them,  and  only  stopping  because  time  does  not  permit 
himtoextend.the  list ;  and  in  his  mentioning  that  the  incense  altar, 
was  all  overlaid  with  gold,  that  the  pot  was  gold,  that  the  rod 
budded,  and  in  calling  the  cherubim,  cherubim  of  glory,  by  which 
is  meant  cherubim  that  bear  the  divine  glory.^ 

It  has  been  charged  that  the  Author  here  represents  that 
the  incense  altar  was  behind  the  vail,  i.  e.,  in  the  Holy  of  holies,^ 
whereas  it  was  in  the  anterior  tent  called  in  ver.  2,  the  first 
tabernacle.  From  this  supposed  ignorance  there  have  been  infer- 
ences drawn  as  to  the  person  of  the  Author,  e.  g.,  that  he  was 
not  familiar  with  the  Temple,  but  drew  his  picture  from  reading 
the  Old  Testament,^  or  that  he  was  no  Jew  of  Palestine.^  It  is  to 
obviate  this  difficulty  that  many  translate  -^uiJAarr^piov,  "  censer."  ^ 
But  the  word  means  incense  altar/  and  we  must  explain  the 
Author's  mention  of  it  consistently  with  that.  The  difficulty 
vanishes  under  a  careful  inspection  of  what  the  Author  precisely 
says,  as  appears  in  the  following  reproduction  of  the  comment  of 
von  Hofmann.^ 

It  reads  ypuaoov  s-^nuaa  i%fuaTTjpiovj  the  tent  that  was  behind  the 
second  vail  had  such  an  altar.  We  read  the  same  in  1  Kings  vi. 
22.  (Not  indeed  in  the  LXX,  where  the  whole  passage  is  badly 
mixed.     But,  that  the  Author  was  only  acquainted  with  the  LXX 

1  Versions  of  1611,  1881. 

2  Hammond,  de  Wette,  Ebrard,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  comp.  Ezek.  ix.  3 :  x.  4. 

3  de  Wette,  Liin.  *  Liin.  »  gieek  in  Del. 

■  So  the  versions  of  1611,  1881 ;  Vulg.,  Stuart,  Lindsay,  comp.  Alford's  full 
notes. 

'  See  Del.,  Davidson.  »  comp.  Ebrard. 


ix.  2-5.]  AND   THE   GOLDEN    ALTAR.  283 

and  not  with  the  original  text,  is  an  assertion  that  we  have 
already  found  to  be  erroneous).  There  it  reads  :  "  the  altar  that 
belonged  to  the  oracle/'  (t^j^S— irx).  How  does  it  come  that  the 
narrator  mentions  there  the  gilding  of  this  altar  immediately  be- 
fore he  speaks  of  images  of  the  cherubim,  and  in  a  connection 
that  relates  entirely  to  the  Holy  of  holies,  if  he  did  not  regard  it 
as  belonging  to  the  Holy  of  holies  ?  It  is,  moreover,  significant 
that  Ex.  XXX.  6,  says  of  the  incense  altar :  "  Thou  slialt  put  it 
before  the  vail  which  is  by  [over]  the  ark  of  the  testimony,  be- 
fore the  mercy  seat  that  is  over  the  testimony,  (niij^n  ^J3S)  and 
again  Ex.  xl.  5,  after  directions  about  bringing  the  table  and 
the  candlestick  into  the  tabernacle,  we  read  :  "  Thou  shalt  set  the 
altar  of  gold  for  incense  before  the  ark  of  the  testimony"  (jnx  'JsS), 
and  afterwards,  (ver.  6),  "  Thou  shalt  set  the  altar  of  burnt  offer- 
ing before  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  tent  of  meeting 
(nin'o-Snx  \2'drp  nna  'jaS).  As  the  altar  of  burnt  offering  belongs 
to  the  tabernacle  before  which  it  stands,  so  does  the  incense  altar 
belong  to  the  Holy  of  holies  before  which  it  stands.  As  the 
Author  does  not  mean  to  give  an  exact  description  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, but  treats  of  its  arrangement  with  reference  to  its  service, 
he  separates  the  incense  altar  from  the  furniture  of  the  Holies, 
and  joins  it  to  the  Holy  of  holies  whose  altar  it  is,  and  to  which 
it  belongs  on  account  of  the  nature  of  its  service.  It  is  objected 
that  fisTo.  dk  TO  Ssurepov  xaTaTziT(T[j.a  distinguishes  as  clearly  as  pos- 
sible between  the  things  represented  as  found  in  the  Holies  and 
those  found  in  the  Holy  of  holies ;  and  e-^ouaa  referring  to 
I'/uiuar^piov  has  the  same  meaning  as  when  used  in  reference  to 
(Tzdiivii^  •/P'J'^^j)  for  both  which  the  bj  rj,  referring  to  ttjv  xijSujr/r^,  de- 
termines the  sense.^  But  it  completely  turns  the  force  of  this 
objection  to  be  reminded  that  when  a  hollow  vessel  e.  g.,  a  pot, 
is  said  to  have  something,  it  is  understood,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  what  it  has  is  inside  of  it ;  though  even  then  it  would  not 
be  true  of  its  lid  or  handle.  What  a  thing  has,  it  has  in  that 
way  that  it  is  possible  to  have  it  from  the  nature  of  the  thing.  To 
use  Ebrard's  illustration,  a  store  has  a  sign,  and  has  goods  for 
sale  among  its  belongings ;  the  former  is  outside,  and  the  latter 
iLun. 


284  ALLEGED   DISCEEPANCIES.  [ix.  2-5. 

are  inside.  And  so  the  Holy  of  holies,  says  the  Author,  has  an 
incense  altar  and  the  ark.  The  second  vail  divides  tent  from 
tent,  not  the  belongings  of  one  tent  from  the  belongings  of  the 
other.  Did  the  Author  say  iv  rj  ipu<i.  ^'^up..  -  "  in  which  is  the 
incense  altar,"  as  he  says,  "  in  which  is  the  golden  pot ; "  and  as 
he  describes  the  contents  of  the  Holies  there  would  be  such  an  error 
as  is  charged  on  him.  But  his  choosing  to  say  I^ooaa  —  having, 
which  can  have  its  appropriate,  yet  different  sense  as  applied  to 
the  incense  altar  and  to  the  ark,  is  evidence  of  his  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts  of  the  case. 

The  difficulty,  thus  explained  away,  is  plainly  of  their  own 
making  w^ho  entertain  it  as  serious.  It  may  be  taken  as  a  very 
perfect  example  of  the  alleged  discrepancies  to  which  appeal  is 
made  by  those  wdio  ascribe  inspiration  to  the  sacred  writers,  yet 
impute  to  them  erroneous  statements  of  facts,  even  in  matters 
where  the  statement  of  facts  is  their  particular  purpose.  Were 
the  Author  guilty  of  the  error  charged  on  him  in  this  instance, 
it  would  be  a  complete  case  of  discrepancy ;  for  he  would  be  in 
immediate  conflict  wath  himself.  For  he  could  not  be  ignorant 
that  the  high  priests  were  directed  to  burn  incense  on  the  incense 
altar  twice  every  day.  This  direction  is  found  Exod.  xxx.  7,  8, 
immediately  after  the  directions  for  setting  the  incense  altar 
before  the  veil.  Yet  in  our  ver.  7,  the  Author  represents  how 
the  high  priests  entered  the  Holy  of  holies  only  once  a  year,  and 
thus,  according  to  his  alleged  error,  could  never  approach  the 
incense  altar  oftener.  What  sort  of  an  idea  can  one  have  of  the 
intelligence  of  a  M^riter,  not  to  say  of  his  inspiration,  who  admits 
such  ignorance  and  glaring  inconsistency  in  him  ?  This  thought 
impresses  one  still  more  gravely,  when  the  same  persons  are 
found  to  treat  supercilliously  solutions  that  are  as  satisfactory  as 
the  foregoing.  As  Ebrard  says  :  w^hy  do  not  such  expositors 
take  the  final  step  and  accuse  our  Author  of  being  ignorant  that 
the  Tabernacle  no  longer  existed  !  For  that  inference  they  have 
all  the  present  tenses  here. 

We  may  treat  more  briefly,  drawing  from  Ebrard,  the  difficulty 
that  is  made  of  the  Author's  representation  that  the  pot  of  manna 
and  Aaron's  rod  were  inside  the  ark  of  the  covenant.     The  objec- 


ix.  6,  7.]  now   THE   TABERNACLE  WAS   USED.  285 

tion^  is,  that  according  to  Exod.  xvi.  33  sq. ;  Num.  xvii.  25 ;  1 
Kings  viii.  9,  these  articles  were  not  laid  in  the  ark,  but  only 
before  or  alongside  of  it.  But  as  the  ark  was  the  only  hollow 
vessel  within  the  space  of  the  Holy  of  holies  ;  and  as  there  is  no 
intimation  of  there  being  any  shelf  there,  and  a  niche  was  impos- 
sible in  walls  made  of  hangings,  one  would  infer  a  jyr'iori  that 
these  articles  were  placed  in  the  ark  along  with  the  tables  of  the 
covenant.  This  inference,  however,  is  not  needed.  For  in  Exod. 
xvi.  33,  34 ;  Num.  xvii.  25,  it  is  expressly  said,  that  these  arti- 
cles were  laid  rinjtfn  'jaS  =  " before  the  testimony"  Expositors! 
have  yet  to  show  the  text  wherein  the  ark  is  designated  by  m^'. 
This  word  is  everywhere  the  designation  for  the  Decalogue,  or 
tables  of  the  law,  which,  as  is  well  known,  lay  in  the  ark.  What 
was  to  be  laid  before  the  testimony  would  be  laid  where  the  tes- 
timony lay.^  When  one  says  he  has  laid  his  condenser  by  the 
microscope,  every  one  understands  that  both  are  laid  in  the  same 
box. 

In  the  foregoing  description  of  the  worldly  sanctuary,  the 
Apostle  contemplates  the  structure  as  described  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, without  any  reference  to  the  Temple  as  it  was  in  the  past, 
or  may  have  been  when  our  epistle  was  written.  Having  now 
described  it,  doing  full  justice  to  the  glory  of  it,  he  proceeds  with  : 
But,  to  point  to  what  marked  its  imperfection. 

Ver.  6.  But  these  things  having  been  so  prepared,  into  the  first 
tent  indeed,  the  priests  enter  continually,  accomplishing  the  ser- 
vices ;  7.  but  into  the  second  the  high  priest  alone  once  in  the  year, 
not  without  blood,  which  he  offers  for  himself  and  for  the  errors  of 
the  people. 

It  is  erroneous  to  suppose  that  the  di  of  ver.  6  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  (jAv  of  ver.  1,  and  thus  to  translate  it  "  now."^  This 
8i  brings  in  an  antithesis  to  the  matter  introduced  by  the  fore- 
going ij.h  ;  hence,  it  is  to  be  translated  "but."*  It  is  not,  indeed, 
the  most  striking  antithesis  that  is  found  in  Christ,  which  is 
represented  ver.  11  sqq. ;  but  it  is  something  preliminary  to 
that,  viz.,  the   imperfection   of  the   services   ordained    for   the 

*  By  Bleek,  in  Ebrard.  '  So  also  von  Ilof. 

*  As  Del.,  Eng.  Vers.  1611,  1881.  *  Lun.,  von  Hof. 


286  SHOWED  THAT  THE  WAY  OF  THE      [ix.  6,  7. 

worldly  sanctuary.  Before  presenting  the  antithesis  of  what  our 
true  High  Priest  is,  the  Apostle  would  show  how,  by  its  very 
character,  the  worldly  sanctuary  represented  that  it  was  for  a 
period  of  imperfection. 

In  describing  the  use  made  of  the  tabernacle  that  was  so  pre- 
pared, the  Apostle  uses  the  present  tense  {daiaffcv,  Tzposipipsi). 
This  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  such  services  were 
performed  at  the  time  of  writing  this  epistle,  and  that  we  find  in 
this  a  reference  to  the  existing  temple  service,  and  thus  a  hint  of 
the  date  when  our  epistle  was  written.^  "  The  present  time  in 
which  the  Apostle's  discourse  moves,  is  not  some  past  time,  nor 
his  own  time,  nor  an  ever  continuing  present,  but  a  present  time 
as  it  is  there  in  the  word  of  God,  where  is  to  be  read  how  the 
sanctuary  prepared  by  Moses  is  constructed,  and  what  priests 
and  high  priest  do  in  it.  Into  the  anterior  tent  the  priests  go 
continually  ;  but  into  the  posterior  the  high  priest  alone  once  a 
year,  that  is,  on  the  one  hand,  only  then,  and  on  the  other,  ever 
again  yearly,  and,  indeed,  not  without  blood  that  he  offers  for 
himself  and  the  errors  of  the  people,^  for  whom  atonement  is  thus 
needed  afresh."  ^  The  Apostle's  representation  here  has  specially 
to  do  with  the  use  made  of  the  tabernacle  that  was  so  prepared. 
It  is  not  the  services  themselves  to  which  he  directs  our  notice. 
His  representation  calls  us  to  notice  the  difference  in  the  use  of 
the  anterior  and  posterior  parts  of  it,  the  first  tent  and  the  second  : 
and  the  fj.i'> — di  =  indeed — but,  mark  again  antithesis.  The  first 
called  the  Holy  place  (ver.  2),  was  used  daily  and  freely  by  the 
priests  in  ministering.  The  second  called  Haly  of  holies  (ver. 
3),  was  used  only  once  a  year,  the  high  priest  alone  entering 
there,  and  that  not  freely  [od  -/iopl?  atimzoi)  but  after  special 
atonement  both  for  himself  and  for  the  people.  This  contrast 
marks  the  second  tent  as  an  inaccessible  place.  That  it  was  so 
entered  as  it  was,  expresses  this  more  than  if  it  were  never  entered 
at  all.  For  it  represents  that  there  was  a  use  for  it,  whereas, 
were  it  never  entered  it  would  express  uselessness.  But  used  as 
it  was,  under  such  restrictions,  it  expressed  a  place  and  presence 

^  Against  Liin.,  Lindsay.  '  Comp.  Lev.  i.  5  ;  vii.  33. 

'  von  Hof. ;  comp.  Davidson. 


ix.  8.]  HOLIES   HAD    NOT    BEEN    MANIFESTED.  287 

that  was  for  the  present  unapproachable.  The  services  (A«r/)££'«?) 
of  the  priests  that  were  discharged  daily,  were  the  morning  and 
evening  oiFering  of  incense,  the  attention  to  the  lamps  and  the 
disposition  of  the  shew  bread.'  The  Apostle  seems  to  confine 
the  notion  of  services  mentioned  ver.  1,  to  what  was  done  in  the 
anterior  tent.  For  here  he  only  repeats  the  mention  of  them  in 
that  connection.  What  the  high  priest  does  in  the  Holy  of 
holies  is  described  in  terms  of  its  own  that  seem  to  distinguish 
it  from  what  is  meant  by  services.  It  confirms  the  thought  that 
he  means  by  services  only  the  things  above  mentioned,  when  we 
notice  that  in  his  enumeration  of  the  furniture  of  the  Holies  he 
mentions  only  the  lamps  and  the  table,  and  omits  the  altar  of 
sacrifice.  The  point  of  the  present  statement  is,  that  while  the 
Holies  was  freely  accessible  to  the  ministers  of  divine  worship, 
the  Holy  of  holies  was  unapproachable. 

This  was  significant,  and  the  Apostle  gives  the  interpretation 
of  it  in  a  subjoined  participial  sentence. 

Ver.  8.  The  Holy  Spirit  showing  this,  that  the  way  of  the 
Holies  hath  not  been  manifested,  while  the  first  tent  still  is  stand- 
ing. 

The  Author  chooses  to  say  :  the  Holy  Spirit  manifests,  instead 
of :  we  are  taught,  or :  we  see,  or  the  like ;  because  he  would 
claim  divine  authority  for  the  radical  truth  here  exhibited.  It 
is  the  same  present  time  as  meant  in  vers.  G,  7,  that  is  meant  here 
again  by  the  present  tense  {87jXouvto<^,  k^ovirr/g).  It  is  the  whole 
present  phenomenon  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  priestly  services 
that  exhibits  the  truth  now  formulated.  It  is  the  Holy  Spirit 
eifective  in  these  that  makes  the  truth  exhibited  by  them  the 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Apostle  assumes  that  his 
readers  agree  with  himself  in  regarding  the  tabernacle  and  its 
appointed  services  as  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  seeing  they 
were  in  existence  by  virtue  of  the  word  of  scripture  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  inspired.  Therefore  the  truth  they  exhil)itcd  was 
truth  revealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  All  which  is  significant  of 
what  is  to  be  believed  concerning  the  inspiration  of  scripture. 

As  to  what  is  made  manifest,  let  it  be  noted,  that  the  way  of 

'Del.:  Lun. 


288  THE   ANTERIOR   TENT.  [ix.  8. 

the  holies  means  the  way  to  the  Holies  (comp.  LXX.,  Gen.  iii. 
24;  Jer.  ii.  18;  Matt.  x.  5).  Moreover,  the  Holies  here  does 
not  mean  the  Holy  of  holies,  or  posterior  tent  of  which  the 
Apostle  has  been  speaking.  This  has  been  commonly  so  under- 
stood.^ But  when  an  author  defines  his  terms  so  precisely  as  is 
done  in  vers.  2,  3,  it  is  inadmissible  that  what  is  called  in  ver.  3 
ayia  ayitov  =  "  Holy  of  holies,  should  here  be  designated  ayta  = 
Holies,  when,  ver.  2,  this  word  has  been  applied  to  the  anterior 
tent.  Neither  can  the  Apostle  by  the  Holies  in  this  verse  mean 
the  anterior  tent  as  he  does  in  verse  2.  He  says  here  :  the  way 
of  the  Holies  was  not  manifested ;  and  there  is  no  conceivable  sense 
in  which  that  can  be  understood  of  the  anterior  tent.  Our  con- 
text itself  represents  the  latter  in  the  very  contrary  light.  What 
misleads  readers  here  is,  that  they  suppose  the  meaning  of: 
the  Holies  is  determined  by  the  mention  of  the  first  tent.  It  is, 
however,  to  viii.  2  we  must  refer  for  its  meaning.^  There  the 
Apostle  has  named  and  described  what  is  for  him  the  Holies  or 
sanctuary.  It  is  the  true  Holy  place  where  God  is,  and  which 
is  referred  to  again  x.  20  in  the  expression  :  "  entrance  into  the 
Holy  place."  The  way  to  this  has  not  been  made  plain  while 
the  anterior  tent  stands  by  virtue  of  the  word  of  scripture.  By 
the  first  tent  is  meant  the  same  as  in  ver.  2,  and  not  the  first  in 
point  of  time,^  nor  yet  that  this  expression  should  here  be  taken 
to  mean  the  entire  worldly  tabernacle.*  The  anterior  tent  is 
named  without  reference  to  the  posterior,  because  in  it  alone  were 
the  services  discharged  that  represented  the  relation  the  people 
had  to  God  and  the  degree  of  access  to  God  that  they  enjoyed. 
While  that,  in  its  quality  as  a  first  tent  contrasted  with  a  second 
that  was  an  exclusively  divine  place,  was  the  place  where  they 
could  freely  and  daily  enter  (by  priestly  mediation),  and  there 
stood  the  Holy  of  holies  from  which  all  were  excluded,  there  was 
the  standing  exhibition  of  the  truth  that  the  way  to  the  real 
sanctuary  of  God's  presence  was  not  made  manifest.  "  Further- 
more, ere  does  not  mean  *  during  the  time  that,'  or  '  so  long  as.' 
^'Eri  T^9  -KpwTrj?  (TXTjvYj's  i)(ou<nrj^  ffrdatv  expresses  the  reason  for  what 

'  e.  g.,  Del.,  Ebrard,  Davidson.  *  von  Hof. 

'  Against  Lindsay.  *  Against  Calvin,  etc. 


ix.  9.]  A   PARABLE   FOR   ITS   TIME.  289 

is  said  not  to  be,  and  not  the  measure  of  the  time  during  which 
it  is  not  to  be,  since  it  must  be  said,  wherein  one  may  know  that 
the  way  of  the  Holies  is  not  yet  revealed.  By  this,  that  the 
anterior  tent  still  stands,  thus  that  the  house  of  God  is  so  con- 
stituted, may  one,  who  understands  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  be 
aware  that  the  way  thither  where  God  is,  is  not  yet  revealed  ;  for 
those  belonging  to  the  house  of  God  it  does  not  yet  exist."  ^ 

In  viii.  2  the  Apostle  refers  to  heaven  where  Christ  is  mth 
God  as  "  the  Holies,  the  true  tabernacle" — without  distinction  of 
a  Holy  place  and  a  Holy  of  holies.^  There  is  no  such  distinc- 
tion either  there  or  here,  or  in  ver.  12.  Escaping  the  misappre- 
hension of  his  meaning  in  the  words  before  us,  we  shall  see  how 
gratuitous  are  the  efforts  of  expositors  to  explain  in  what  sense 
the  Apostle  finds  in  Christ's  entering  the  heavenly  Holies  a  par- 
allel to  the  earthly  high  priest  passing  through  the  Holies  into 
the  Holy  of  holies.^ 

Directing  our  attention,  then,  to  the  anterior  tent  and  the  use 
made  of  it  in  divine  service,  and  having  said  what  is  thus  made 
manifest,  ascribing  the  same  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Apostle 
adds : 

Ver.  9  a.     Which  [is]  a  parable  for  the  time  present. 

It  is  the  anterior  tent,  including  also  the  use  made  of  it,  that 
is  referred  to  by  which  (^rt?).  This  the  Apostle  says  is  a  par- 
able, and  we  supply  "  is,"  because  the  whole  subject  is  contem- 
plated in  the  light  of  the  written  word  present  before  the  Author 
and  his  readers,  as  explained  at  vers.  6,  7.  For  the  same  reason  : 
the  time  present  is  to  be  understood  of  that  time  when  the  Holy 
Ghost  teaches  by  the  existence  of  the  anterior  tent  there  in  the 
written  ordinances.  That  tent  is  a  parable,  i.  e.,  a  visible  repre- 
sentation for  (ej'f  =  "  in  reference  to  ")  ^  the  time  present  to  which 
it  belongs.^  In  affirming  this,  the  emphasis  is  not  on  :  a  parable, 
as  if  it  needed  to  be  said  that  teaching  in  this  form  is  teaching 
by  parable,  or  that  the  anterior  tent  had  a  parabolic  meaning. 

'  von  Hof.  *  Com  p.  Angus. 

'  Comp.  Del.,  where  at  ver.  12  he  labors  with  this  notion.  On  the  other 
hand,  comp.  Davidson,  p.  174. 

*  Davidson.  'von  Hof;  against  A  Iford. 

19 


290  CONSCIENCES   NOT   MADE  PERFECT.  [ix.  9. 

Either  of  these  is  sufficiently  expressed  by  ver.  8  alone,  and  was 
sufficiently  known  to  be  so  without  being  expressly  affirmed. 
The  emphasis  is  on  :  for  the  time  present.  The  parable  applies 
to  that  time. 

Reading  with  such  an  emphasis,  we  have  evidently  an  uncom- 
pleted notion,  unless  something  follows  that  characterizes  the  time 
referred  to,  and  interprets  the  correspondence  between  the  time 
and  the  parable.  We  find  this  complement  of  the  notion  in : 
ver.  9  6,  10. 

Ver.  9  b.  During  which  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  are  offered 
that  cannot,  in  respect  to  conscience,  make  the  worshipper  perfect. 

Such  being  the  logical  order  of  thought  in  our  context,  we  are 
obliged  to  adopt  the  reading  xaff  Zv}  instead  of  xa^f  i]v} 
xard  =  "  during,"  has  its  usual  temporal  meaning.  "  The  Apostle 
describes  the  time  with  reference  to  which  the  anterior  tent  serves 

1  With  Eecept.  Ebrard,  von  Hof.,  de  Wette,  Lindsay. 

^  Against  L. ;  T. ;  Tr. ;  W.  &  H.,  Liin.,  etc.  "  It  is  usual  to  prefer  kci?'  yv  as 
being  best  supported  and  the  more  difficult  reading.  As  regards  the  support 
of  authorities,  the  agreement  of  the  oldest  translations  with  almost  all  the 
cursive  MSS.  weighs  quite  as  much  as  the  testimony  of  the  oldest  uncial  MSS. 
that  so  often  present  a  text  that  has  been  amended  on  internal  grounds.  And 
in  the  present  case  it  could  seem  unavoidable  to  write  Ka'&'  tjv  instead  of  /cai?' 
bv,  if  Tov  Kuipbv  Tov  kvECTi)K6Ta  was  taken  as  referring  to  the  present  time  of  the 
Author.  If  then  /cai?'  ijv.,  too,  had  its  difficulty,  it  was  still  the  only  way  of 
avoiding  the  seemingly  impossible.  However,  as  to  difficulty,  one  would  hardly 
suppose  it  was  felt,  considering  the  ease  with  which  expositors  that  adopt 
Ka-d'  ijv  get  over  the  passage.  They  refer  /cai?'  i]v  either  to  irapafio'kTj  (Bleek, 
Del.),  or  to  r^f  ■n-purrig  aKTjvfjq.  (Liin.)  In  the  latter  case  they  are  content  to 
paraphrase  about  thus :  it  comports  with  the  anterior  tent,  or  corresponded  to 
it,  that  sacrifices  are  offered  that  are  unable  to  perfect  the  conscience.  In  the 
former  case ;  the  parable,  which  the  anterior  tent  is  said  to  be,  and  such  sacri- 
fices correspond  in  this,  that  they  answer  to  the  sanctuary  that  bears  on  its 
front  the  evidence  of  an  imperfection  that  points  away  from  itself.  But  /caiJ'  ijv 
expresses  more  than  such  a  correspondence,  and  the  Apostle  would  say,  the 
anterior  tent,  or  the  parable  that  it  is,  brings  such  sacrificing  with  it  and  has 
it  as  a  consequence ;  and  how  this  is  meant  would  be  hard  to  say.  A  plainer 
sense  appears  in  the,  would  be,  exposition  of  kci?'  tjv  referred  to  irapafto?.?/ :  that 
such  offering  is  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  the  present  time  that  is 
visibly  represented  by  the  anterior  tent.  But  in  that  case  it  is  the  time  itself, 
and  not  the  typical  representation  of  it,  that  brings  such  offering  with  it ;  and 
not  /cai?'  yv,  but  Ka-&'  bv  yields  this  thought."     von  Hof. 


ix.  10.]  BY  ORDINANCES   OF   THE    FLESH.  291 

as  a  parable.  It  is  a  time  for  offering  both  gifts  and  sacrifices 
without  the  offeriug  beiug  able  to  make  perfect  '  those  that  per- 
formed such  divine  service.'  The  juxtaposition  here  of  gifts 
and  sacrifices  tr»  the  mention  of  the  high  priest's  service  on  the 
great  day  of  Atonement  (ver.  7),  compared  with  the  similar  and 
more  ample  representation  of  v.  1-3,  constrains  us  to  understand 
the  reference  to  be  the  same  as  there.  "The  worth  of  this 
service,  that  goes  along  with  the  sanctuary  so  prepared,  may  be 
estimated  by  the  character  of  the  time  of  which  this  sanctuary  is 
the  significant  emblem,  a  sanctuary  that  presents  no  way  to  God."  ^ 

So  judged,  the  Apostle  defines  the  worth  of  the  "  gifts  and 
sacrifices,"  first  negatively,  they  cannot  perfect  the  worshipper  as 
to  his  conscience  (9  6),  which  is  essential  where  one  may  really 
draw  near  to  God ;  second  affirmatively  (ver.  10),  stating  what 
their  worth  amounts  to  : 

Ver.  10.  [Being]  only  (with  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  wash- 
ings) ordinances  of  the  flesh  imposed  until  a  time  of  reformation. 

Only  connects  with  ordinances,  and  ordinances  is  in  apposition 
with  "  gifts  and  sacrifices."  EtzI—  with  has  the  meaning  of  "  in 
conjunction  with,"^  and  joins  meats,  drinks  and  washings  to 
"  gifts  and  sacrifices,"  as  comprised  in  the  same  categor}^ 

This,  then,  is  the  value  of  the  gifts  and  sacrifices  offered  dur- 
ing the  time  the  anterior  tent  exists.  They  are  only  ordinances 
of  the  flesh,  which  points  the  antithesis  of  the  foregoing  negative, 
viz.,  that  they  do  not  perfect  the  conscience.  To  make  plainer 
the  exact  value  of  the  gifts  and  sacrifices,  they  are  put  in  the 
same  plane  with  meats,  drinks  and  washings.  By  these  latter 
must  be  understood  things  commanded  to  be  eaten,^  etc.,  as  the 
gifts  and  sacrifices  were  commanded  ((hxatd/iara)  ;  and  not  things 
forbidden  as  well  as  commanded.^  There  were  no  washings  that 
were  forbidden,  under  Levitical  law ;  only  such  as  were  com- 
manded.® The  prescribed  meats  and  drinks  referred  to  here  are 
the  Paschal  and  sacrificial  meals.  By  the  present  statement, 
then,  the  Apostle  reduces  the  solemn  and  impressive  services  of 

»  von  Ilof.  «  Phil.  i.  3. 

'  De  Wctte,  von  Hof.  *  Against  Lun.,  Del.,  Alford. 

'  e.  g.,  Lev.  xi.  25,  28,  82,  40;  xiv.  <t ;  xv.  6,  11,  etc 


292  THE   TIME   OF    REFORMATION.  [ix.  11,  12. 

the  high  priest  on  the  great  day  of  Atonement,  to  the  same  level 
as  the  ordinary  services  discharged  in  the  anterior  tent.     As  such 
they  had  a  value.     They  represented  a  relationship  to  God.  The 
chosen  people  had  the  outward  relation  of  being  God's  people. 
The  observance  of  these  outward  ordinances  made  the  worshipper 
conscious  that  he  was  a  part  of  that  people.     It  is  said  further 
that  these  ordinances  were  imposed  until  a  time  of  reformation. 
This  expression :  imposed  reflects  the  sentiment  of  Acts  xv.  10, 
20,  that  the  things  in  question  are  a  burden,^  and  the  following 
context  shows  that  this  forms  an  important  part  of  the  present 
thought.     But  the  emphatic  thought  is,  that,  not  only  are  they 
for  a  time  that  must  end,  as  the  whole  context  implies,  but  that 
this  time  is  followed  by  another  that  brings  in  a  reformation  "  a 
straightening  up;"  (Si<>pi'fw(Tew<i) ;  and  this  is  said  with  obvious 
reference  to  what  has  just  been  quoted  from  Jeremiah  in  viii.  8 
sqq.      There  seems  to  be  an  intended  antithesis  of  metaphor  in 
dcop>')(oi.  and  i-ruy.tttj..  of  incumbentia,  steady  pressing  down  (Ben- 
gel),  and  "  straightening  up."     As  such  it  emphasizes  the  con- 
trast of  the  former  time  and  the  time  of  reformation.     By  this 
emphasis  of  antithesis,  the  reader  is  prepared  for  what  follows  ver. 
12,  where  the  expression :  "  everlasting  redemption  "  occurs,  and 
sees  at  once  what  is  particularly  in  the  Author's  mind,  and  how  to 
answer  the  question  :  redempticm  from  tchat  f  The  foregoing  pas- 
sage (vers.  6-10)  represents  wherein  the  worldly  sanctuary  with 
its  appointed  services  is  defective  (as  it  relates  to  consciences  that 
need  perfecting),  however  perfect  and  glorious  it  may  be  for  the 
worldly  relation  for  which  it  was  instituted.     The  mention  of 
a  time  of  reformation  intimates  that  what  is  wanting,  expressly 
what  relates  to  perfecting  consciences,  will  be  supplied.     "  The 
picture  is  now  completely  drawn,  and  we  are  fully  prepared  for 
the  contrast  which  is  to  be  presented  in  the  folloTving  verses."  ^ 

Ver.  11.  But  Christ  having  appeared,  a  high  priest  of  the  good 
things  to  come,  by  the  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  not 
made  with  hands,  that  is,  not  of  this  creation,  12.  and  not  by  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood,  entered  once  for  all  into 
the  Holies  obtaining  an  eternal  redemption. 

^  Comp.  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford,  Angus,  ^  Del. 


ix.  11,  12.]  CHRIST  THE   HIGH   PRIEST.  293 

The  Apostle  named  the  Redeemer,  "  Jesus,"  in  his  last  pre- 
vious mention  of  Him  by  name  (vi.  22).  He  now  uses  the  name 
Christ,  and  with  evident  propriety.  The  foregoing  expression, 
prompts  its  use,  viz.,  "a  time  of  reformation  "  (ver.  10),  which 
would  be  understood  to  mean  the  time  of  the  Messiah,  or  Christ. 
The  expression  :  Christ  having  appeared  says  in  other  words,  the 
time  of  reformation  having  come.  "  Having  appeared  is  the 
usual  expression  for  appearing,  or  coming  forward  as  a  historical 
person ;  appearing  on  the  stage  of  the  world."  ^  This  obvious 
connection  of  thought  settles  the  question  as  to  the  future  intended 
by  all  that  is  represented  in  our  verses,  including  the  expression  : 
good  things  to  come.  They  fall  in  the  present  that  is  represented 
by  what  Christ  is,  having  appeared  ;  especially  and  expressly 
the  present  time  w^herein  Christ  is  the  High  Priest  He  is  as 
already  represented.^  The  future  is  such  relatively  to  the 
ordained  services  of  the  worldly  sanctuary  whose  defect  has  just 
been  shown.^  Such  being  the  relation  of  the  substance  of  our 
verses,  we  see  that  the  5t^  =  But,  is  the  antithesis  of  the  /icv  ver.  1. 
We  have  seen  that  the  di  of  ver.  6  introduced  an  antithesis  of 
subsidiary  and  auxiliary  import,  that  prepared  for  the  full  con- 
trast that  i«  now  presented.*  It  is  not  Christ's  appearing  in 
general,  but  that,  having  appeared,  he  is  a  high  priest,  that  is  of 
importance  to  the  Apostle's  argument ;  and  he  gives  still  further 
precision  to  the  notion  by  calling  Him  high  priest  of  the  good 
things  to  come.  The  expressions  TcDf  ayaffwv  =good  things,  does 
not  simply  mean  "goods,"  or  "possessions."*  It  describes  the 
quality  of  the  things  to  come  referred  to,  and  is  even  emphatic. 
Comparison  is  intended ;  to  come,  as  expressing  future  time, 
being  "  the  time  of  reformation,"  and  being  in  antithesis  to  the 
time  of  imperfect  ordinances,  when  "  the  way  of  the  Holies  was 
not  yet  made  manifest,"  and  the  good  things  being  in  antithesis  to 

1  Alford. 

^  Instead  of  /ieX^Avtuv,  W.  and  H.  read  ryevo/Jvuv'i  = "  that  are  come." 
Whether  we  adopt  it  or  not,  it  is  im])ortant  support  to  the  interpretation  we 
give  iielMyTuv.  Corap.  Lindsay,  Davidson,  comp.  x.  1. 

'Against  Alford,  von  Ilof.  *  Ebrard,  von  Ilof. 

*  Against  Ehrard,  in  a  present  sense,  etc.,  von  Hof.,  Del.,  etc.,  in  a  future 
sense. 


294  THE   MORE   PEEFECT  TABERNACLE        [ix.  11,  12. 

the  "  worldly  sanctuary  and  ordained  services,"  and  their  quality 
of  not-goodness  that  has  just  been  shown  up.  It  is  the  same 
comparison  and  antithesis  that  underlies  the  whole  discourse  of 
viii. — X.  18.  The  particulars  of  the  good  things  to  come,  as  far 
as  they  are  the  antithetical  complement  of  the  matters  mentioned 
vers.  1-10,  are  mentioned  in  the  following  clauses,  which  ojipose 
the  heavenly  sanctuary  M^here  Christ  ministere,  and  the  use  made 
of  it,  to  the  worldly  sanctuary  and  the  use  made  of  it.  When 
factors,  and  sufficient  ones,  for  defining  the  expressions  used  are 
so  near  at  hand,  we  are  not  justified  in  looking  further  for  them. 
The  latter  is  what  they^  do  who  would  have  good  things  to  come 
refer  to  what  is  still  future  for  believers,  viz.,  the  heavenly  inher- 
itance. 

The  following  clauses  that  define  the  good  things  to  come 
express  them  positively  and  negatively.  The  chief  point  is  the 
affirmation,  that  Christ  obtained  an  everlasting  redemption ;  what 
is  said  beside  represents  the  means  by  which  he  was  qualified  to 
obtain  this,  the  did  being  in  all  three  instances  instrumental.^ 
Thus  in  what  he  secured  and  in  the  means  of  his  securing  it  we 
see  the  good  things  that  mark  the  (for  us)  superior  high-priest- 
hood of  Christ.  The  thing  secured  comes  in  as  a  climax.  The 
means  are  represented  first.  The  greater  and  more  perfect  tent 
is  the  same  as  "  the  true  tent "  viii.  2  ;  and  :  not  made  by  hand, 
that  is,  not  of  this  creation,  defines  it,  as  at  viii.  2,  the  same  is 
defined  to  be  that  "  which  God  pitched  and  not  man."  But  here 
the  definition  points  the  antithesis  to  the  "  worldly  sanctuary," 
ver.  1,  and  to  "the  time  being,"  for  which  it  was  a  parable. 
This  tent  is  made  by  God,  and  is  remote  from  the  present  visible 
creation.  It  is  by  means  of  this  greater  and  better  tent  that 
Christ  is  the  High  Priest  that  He  is.  "  For  as  the  sanctuary  so 
is  the  priest."^  The  Tabernacle  of  which  Aaron  was  the  high 
priest  made  him  the  high  priest  he  was.  This  is  not  meant  in 
the  sense  that  Christ  was  no  High  Priest  till  He  entered  heaven, 
any  more  than  it  could  be  inferred  that  Aaron  was  no  high  priest 
till  he  entered  the  Tabernacle.  The  latter  was  high  priest  by 
virtue  of  his  anointing  to  be  such.     And  Christ,  as  the  Anointed, 

^  Alford,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  etc.  *  So  von  Hof.  ^von  Hof. 


ix.  11,  12.]  ENTERED   ONCE    FOR    ALL.  295 

described  Isa.  Ixi.  1,  6,  10 ;  Ps.  ex.  4,  was  High  Priest  in  virtue 
of  His  being  Christ.  Yet,  neither  could  be  high  priest  without 
the  place  of  high-priestly  ministry  ;  as  the  present  condition  of  the 
Jews,  without  a  temple,  shows,  with  regard  to  Levitical  high 
priests.  As  the  place,  i.  e,,  the  Tabernacle,  characterized  the 
time  when  it  had  valid  existence,  so  the  place  of  Christ's  minis- 
try, that  is,  the  Holies,  or  heaven,  characterizes  the  "  time  of 
reformation,"  and  makes  Him  High  Priest  of  good  things.  It 
is  a  time  when  the  way  of  the  Holies  is  made  manifest,^  and,  as 
ver.  12  says,  he  entered  there. 

The  next  particular  is  expressed  negatively  and  positively : 
And  not  by  means  of  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  means  of 
his  own  blood.  The  reference  is  to  the  sacrifices  of  the  great  day 
of  atonement,^  with  special  reference  to  the  mention  of  the  same 
ver.  9,  and  which  are  now  specified.  The  sacrificial  service  of  a 
priest  makes  him  the  priest  he  is,  as  much  as  the  sanctuary.^ 
Therefore  the  subject  matter  here  justifies  us  in  taking  dtd  again 
as  instrumental,  as  it  does  in  the  foregoing  case ;  nor  do  we  see 
how  the  audi  forbids  its  having  the  same  reference  to  dpx'-P-  ^-  z^- 
ayafHb-^.*  The  sacrifice  of  the  high  priest  on  the  day  of  atone- 
ment gave  the  chief  significance  to  his  office.  What  such  sacri- 
fices amount  to,  the  Apostle  has  just  said  (vers.  9, 10).  Christ  is 
not  the  high  priest  that  such  sacrifices  make  one.  But  by  his 
own  blood,  this  is  the  positive  representation.  It  reiterates  the 
sentiment  of  viii.  27.  By  means  of  that  he  is  a  High  Priest 
of  good  things,  thus,  as  the  antitheses  to  the  foregoing  negative 
shows,  of  better  things '  than  what  the  Apostle  has  called  "  ordi- 
nances of  flesh"  (ver.  10). 

The  particulars  just  mentioned  point  out  how  Christ  is  the 
High  Priest  he  is  ;  the  next  represents  him  acting  as  so  qualified. 
He  entered  the  Holies  once  for  all.  The  construction  of  our  verses 
is  as  follows  :  Christ  is  subject,  with  having  appeared  in  agree- 
ment as  participial  predicate  ;  a  high  priest  of  good  things  to  come 
is  in  apposition  with  the  subject,  with  :  by  means  of  ...  his  own 

^  Comp.  ver.  8.  '  I^ev.  xvi.  14,  15.  '  Conip.  viii.  3. 

*  Against  von  Ilof. ;  coinp.  Winer,  p.  487,  note  2;  Kiiliner  Gramm.  II.  p. 
832,  833 ;  and  Del.  in  von  Hof.,  in  loc.  *  Coiap.  ver.  13,  14. 


296  BY    HIS   OWN    BLOOD.  [ix.  11,  12. 

blood,  adjoined  as  explaining  the  means ;  and  entered  .  .  .  once 
for  aU  is  predicate.  The  Holies  that  Christ  entered  is  heaven  ;  ^ 
nor  is  it  to  be  thought  to  mean  something  different  from  the  more 
perfect  tent.  Here,  as  at  viii.  2,  "  the  Holies  "  and  "  the  tent  " 
mean  the  same.  As  has  been  learned  above  (ver.  1-10),  the 
Apostle  does  not  transfer  to  heaven  the  distinction  of  Holies  and 
Holy  of  holies.  That  which  he  has  called  tent  he  now  calls  Holies 
with  reference  to  the  corresponding  act  when  the  Levitical  high 
priest  entered  the  Holies  of  holies. 

Once  for  all  is  meant  as  at  vii.  27  ;  he  entered  to  continue  there 
a  high  priest  forever.  To  this  predicate  is  added  another,  parti- 
cipially,  expressed  in  the  aorist  (supdfis)^,,?),  which  signifies  that 
what  is  so  predicated  "  is  contemporary  with  the  aorist  itself, 
siff^Xi^sv."  ^  The  redemption  was  obtained  when  he  entered,  and 
by  his  efntering.  This  may  be  best  rendered  in  English  :  he  en- 
tered .  .  .  and  obtained  an  everlasting*  redemption.  Before  con- 
sidering what  is  meant  by  the  redemption,  we  may  note,  that  its 
being  everlasting  is  to  be  ascribed  to  his  having  entered  the 
Holies  once  for  all  to  continue  there  a  high  priest  forever,  in  the 
same  sense  and  with  the  same  effect  as  the  Apostle  has  repre- 
sented vii.  27,  28.  While  he  is  there  and  ministering  the  re- 
demption lasts. 

Regarding  kurpwac?  =  redemption,  close  attention  to  our  con- 
text reveals  that  it  is  commonly  taken  ^  in  a  much  larger  sense 
than  the  Apostle  means  here,  and  larger  than  the  word  can  be 
made  to  bear  of  itself.  Its  New  Testament  use  *  gives  no  evi- 
dence of  its  having  acquired  a  distinctively  evangelical  sense, 
such  as  some  capital  words  and  terms  have  acquired,  and  such  as 
"  redemption  "  itself  has  since  acquired.  And,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, there  is  no  ground  for  such  a  remark  as  that :  "  Xbrpuxnq  is 
used  by  St.  Luke  only  ;  dKoXurpwffi?  is  St.  Paul's  word,  occurring 
also  in  Luke  xxi.  28,  and  in  our  ver.  15,  and  xi.  35,"  ^  as  if  this 

'  viii.  1,  2. 

*  Alford  ;  comp.  Ebrard,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Davidson ;  against  Lindsay. 
'  e.  g.,  Lindsay. 

*  Luke  i.  68 ;  ii.  38 ;  Acts  vii.  35,  the  only  instances ;  comp.  LXX.  Ps.  cxi. 
9;  exxx.  7.  ^ Alford;  comp.  Del. 


ix.   11,  12.]      OBTAINED   EVERLASTING   REDEMPTION.  297 

furnished  some  evidence  as  to  the  authorship  of  our  epistle.  As 
we  fiud  the  word  used,  "  it  must  literally  denote,  not  redemption 
or  ransom,  but  the  act  of  freeing  or  releasing,  i.  e.,  deliverance ; 
not  with  reference  to  the  pei-son  delivering,  but  to  the  person 
delivered,  and  therefore  in  the  passive  sense,  like  most  substan- 
tives in — (7;9,  Latin — io."  ^  The  solvent  of  its  meaning  is  the 
question  :  what  redemption  f  To  which  the  answer  is  :  your  (the 
reader's)  redemption,  i.  e.,  release.  On  this  follows  the  question  : 
release,  or  deliverance  from  what  f  which  can  only  be  answered 
from  the  context.  In  Ps.  cxi.  9,  it  is  deliverance  from  the 
bondage  of  Egypt.  In  Ps.  cxxx.  7,  8,  it  is  deliverance  out  of 
calamities  that  are  recognized  as  the  chastisement  of  sins.  In  the 
other  New  Testament  passages,  it  is  deliverance  by  the  Messiah 
from  Roman  and  every  other  dependence.^  In  our  verses  it 
must  be  what  the  context  shows,  and  not  something  involved  in 
the  word  itself  and  self-evident.  That  meaning  is  not  deter- 
mined by  the  expression  :  "  by  his  own  blood  ; "  for  we  have 
found  that  to  relate  to  "  high  priest,"  as  showing  by  what  means 
Christ  is  the  High  Priest  that  he  is.  And  whether  we  take  "  by 
his  own  blood,"  as  showing,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  meaning  of 
the  XuTf)vj(Tfi,  it  does  not  answer  the  question :  redeemed  from 
what  ?  but  only  :  what  is  the  ransom  ?  Comparing  the  use  of 
h'j-piry,  we  observe  that  there  is  no  answer,  Matt.  xx.  28  ;  IVIark 
X.  45,  to  the  question  :  ransom  from  what  ?  but  only  to  the 
question  :  what  is  the  ransom  ?  Again  comparing  the  use  of  the 
verb  hjTpi'nt)  in  the  three  instances  of  its  New  Testament  use,  we 
find  that  the  answer  to  the  question  :  ransom  from  what?  is  in 
Luke  xxiv.  21,  one  thing,  in  Tit.  ii.  14  another,  in  1  Peter  i.  18, 
still  another.  And  in  all  these  instances  the  ransom  is  the  same, 
viz.,  the  life,  or  blood  of  Christ,  or,  himself.  AVe  reiterate,  there- 
fore, the  answer  here  to  the  question  :  ransom  from  what  ?  must 
be  what  the  wntext  makes  it,  and  that  may  be  different  from  what 
it  is  in  any  of  the  foregoing  instances.     Such  is  actually  the  case. 

The  redemption  is  "  deliverance  "  or  "  relea.se  "  for  the  readers 
and  all  like  them,  and  that  in  respect  to  what  the  context  repre- 
sents as  a  condition  that  needs  release  o'r  deliverance.     This  rep- 

*  Cremer,  Lex.  suh  voc.  *  Corap.  Meyer  on  Luke  i.  68. 


298  REDEMPTION   FROM   WHAT?  [ix.  11,  17. 

resentation  we  have  had  in  the  expression  dixatmimra  (japxo<i — 
enixsifieva  =  "  ordinances  of  the  flesh  imposed  ^  (ver.  10).  In  ver. 
14,  the  Apostle  expressly  shows  that  he  has  these  in  mind  in  the 
present  expression  obtained  redemption.  The  very  point  of  the 
triumphant  inference  of  vers.  13,  14,  is,  that  the  blood-ransom 
of  Christ  delivers  from  the  incumbent  load  of  these  ordinances 
of  flesh,  or,  as  he  there  expresses  it,  "  cleanses  the  conscience 
from  dead  works."  Minds  familiar  with  the  large  and  compre- 
hensive meaning  commonly  ascribed  to  our  word  redemption, 
will  revolt  at  the  simple  and  limited  meaning  now  ascertained 
for  it.  To  such  it  will  seem  little  and  pitiful.  But  this  is  only 
a  kind  of  prejudice  with  which  we  are  continually  confronted  in 
the  study  of  this  epistle.^  Yet  it  will  serve  to  reassure  those 
who  feel  thus,  to  read  1  Peter  i.  18,  19.  There  the  Apostle 
Peter,  while  he  impressively  enhances  the  worth  of  the  ransom, 
calling  it :  "  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  blameless 
and  spotless,"  says,  that  it  ransoms  his  readers  "  from  their  vain 
conversation  delivered  unto  them  by  their  heathen  fathers."  If 
that  is  a  worthy  representation,  so  is  this  that  we  find  in  our 
text.  Our's  is  even  superior.  A  release  from  burdensome  ordi- 
nances which  God  himself  imposed  is  more  glorious,  as  it  is  more 
wonderful,  than  release  from  traditions  imposed  by  heathen  an- 
cestry. It  is  the  special  aim  of  this  Epistle  to  expound  God's 
will  in  this  matter  as  revealed  by  the  Son  that  speaks  for  God 
in  these  last  days  of  revelation.^ 

This  redemption,  or  release  from  the  burden  of  ordinances  of 
the  flesh,  is  called  an  everlasting  redemption  by  which  is  meant 
that  it  is  release  forever  from  them.  In  stating  that  Christ 
procured  this  redemption,  the  Apostle  represents  that  it  was  done 
simultaneously  with  Christ's  entering  the  Holies.  The  point  of 
the  statement  of  our  verse  is,  not  to  show  how  the  redemption 
was  procured,  but  that  it  was  procured,  and  that  it  was  procured 
when  Christ  entered  the  Holies.  As  Christ  entered  there  a 
qualified  High  Priest  once  for  all,  i.  e.,  to  continue  there  a  High 

^  Comp.  on  ver.  10.  *  '  Comp.  above  under  vii.  25. 

^  i.  1  sqq. 


ix.  13,  14.]  CURIOUS   INQUIRIES.  299 

Priest  forever,  therefore  the  redemption,  or  release  from  the  bur- 
den of  ordinances  of  flesh  is  an  evelasting  redemption.' 

The  Apostle  adds  a  comment  to  the  statement  just  made,  that 
is  meaut  to  enforce  the  affirmation  that  Christ  "  obtained  an  ever- 
lasting redemption.  With  this  the  For  connects,  introducing  a 
reason. 

Ver.  13.  For  if  the  blood  of  goats  and  bulls,  and  the  ashes  of 
a  heifer  sprinkling  them  that  have  been  defiled,  sanctify  unto  the 
cleanness  of  the  flesh ;  14.  how  much  more  will  the  blood  of  Christ, 
who  by  an  eternal  spirit  off'ered  himself  without  blemish  unto  God, 
cleanse  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God? 

The  things  compared  here  are  on  the  one  hand  tiie  sacrifices 

^Any  extendeil  commentary  on  our  verses  will  show  how  much  that  is  usually 
discussed  as  if  belonging  to  them  is  untouched  in  the  above  exposition.  Take, 
for  example,  Delitzsch's  extended  comment  so  respectfully  referred  to  by 
Alford.  According  to  that,  we  must  determine:  what  future  good  things^ 
possessions, are  meant  by  "good  things  to  come,"  with  nothing  but  the  expres- 
sion itself  to  help  us.  Understanding  them  to  be  the  future  inheritance  of 
believers,  we  are  to  say:  what  may  be  meant  by  them.  Again  we  must  con- 
sider the  problems  suggested  by  the  interpretation  that  understands  the  Apostle 
to  represent  that  Clirist  entered  the  Holies  '  through  the  tent  not  made  with 
hands,"  and  "  through  Ilis  own  blood."  Tliey  are  sucli  as  these :  Does  this 
more  perfect  tabernacle  denote  the  sinless  humanity  of  Clirist?  If  so,  is  that 
"the  humanity  of  Christ  simply  as  such,"  which  is  an  ancient  view,  or  "the 
Lord's  glorified  humanity  as  the  true  tabernacle  or  habitation  of  God,  in  which 
the  fulness  of  the  divine  nature  dwells  bodily"  (Col.  ii.  9),  which  is  von  Ilof- 
mann's  view.  Then,  again  :  What  different  notions  are  expressed  by  "greater 
tabernacle  and  the  Holies?"  A.ssuming  them  to  mean  different  things  corre- 
sponding to  the  anterior  and  posterior  tents,  how  can  Christ  be  said  to  enter 
the  Holies^  Holiest  of  all,  through  His  own  body=:the  more  perfect  taber- 
nacle? Or,  if  there  is  no  such  tautology,  and  we  accept  the  meaning  to  be: 
per  ctrlos  in  cMum  inr/ressus  e.s7,  without  involving  any  absurdity  (Del.),  then 
which  are  "the  heavens,"  and  which  is  "the  heaven"  intended?  Again,  how 
shall  we  understand  that  Christ  entered  he.-iven  "by  His  own  blood  ?"  Does 
He  take  the  blood  with  Him?  or  must  we  think  only  of  the  effusion  of  His 
blood  before  entering?  Is  Christ's  glorified  body  bloodless  (vonllof.)?  Did 
He  enter  heaven  with  a  bloodless  body,  yet  with  His  blood,  "carrying  His  own 
blood  for  us  in  separation  from  His  body  into  heaven "  (Bengel  in  Del.)  ? 
How  does  this  view,  or  any  view  comport  with  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ?  Again,  taking  Xhrfjuai^  in  the  comprehensive  sense  of  ransom 
from  sin,  are  we  to  understand  that  the  ransom  was  paid  to  God,  or  was  it 
paid  to  Satan?    The  view  that  leads  to  such  iiKjuiries,  unconsciously  perhaps, 


300  A   MINORI   AD   MAJUS.  [ix.  13,  14. 

used  on  the  great  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  xvi.),  and  the  ashes  of 
the  heifer  according  to  Num.  xix.,  and  their  efficacy,  and  on  the 
other  hand,  Christ's  blood  and  its  efficacy  as  seen  in  his  offering 
himself  by  it  to  God.  A  particular  effect  of  the  former  is  con- 
trasted with  a  particular  and  similar  effect  of  the  latter,  and 
therefrom  the  Apostle  presses  an  inference,  with  an  argument 
a  minori  ad  majus.  The  former,  which  is  conceded  to  be  true, 
is  that  the  Levitical  ordinances  mentioned  sanctify  to  the  clean- 
ness of  the  flesh.  This  was  an  outward  purity  that  constituted 
one  right  in  his  relations  toward  God  so  far  as  being  right 
in  his  relations  to  the  people  of  God,  i.  e.,  rightly  one  of 
that  people,  expressed  that.     This  effect  the  ordinances  in  ques- 

yet  really  regards  the  expression  "  obtained  an  everlasting  redemption  "  as  if 
the  chief  notion  it  presents  is  that  Christ  does  to  achieve  redemption,  whereas 
we  have  seen  that  it  presents  the  notion  of  what  is  achieved,  viz.,  release  or 
deliverance  of  those  concerned.  Influenced  by  the  erroneous  view  just  men- 
tioned, expositors  suppose  the  Antlior  aims  to  point  the  antitypical  parallel 
between  Christ  and  His  high-priesthood,  with  the  true  tabernacle  and  His  own 
blood,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Levitical  or  typical  high  priests  and  the 
worldly  sanctuary  and  its  ordained  sacrifices,  detailed  ver.  1-10  on  the  other ; 
and  that  the  aim  is  limited  to  that.  Delitzsch,  with  Alford  concurring,  even 
makes  our  ver.  12  the  end  of  a  section  on  the  priesthood  of  Christ ;  the  section 
being  the  second  (vii.  26 — ix.  12),  which  "compares  Christ  as  High  Priest  with 
the  higli  priests  of  the  Old  Testament."  How  this  does  violence  to  the  logi- 
cal connection  of  vers.  13,  14,  has  already  appeared,  and  will  appear  further, 
when  we  consider  those  verses. 

The  understanding  we  have  ascertained  of  our  verses  shows  that  the  above 
problems  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  thoughts  the  verses  present  to  us.  Some 
of  the  problems  suggested,  seeing  they  have  no  other  suggestion  than  the 
erroneous  understanding  of  our  verses,  are  unscriptural  notions  altogether. 
Such  is  the  notion  of  Christ's  entering  heaven  where  He  is  and  where  believ- 
ers are  to  enter  and  be  with  Him,  through  some  heaven  that  is  not  that  heaven, 
which  is  yet  represented  by  the  anterior  tent  as  the  way  of  the  Holies ;  or  that, 
(so  Del.),  through  the  heaven,  where  believers  and  Christ,  with  angels,  live  in 
God's  manifested  presence  and  enjoy  the  beautiful  vision,  Christ  passed  into 
the  Holiest  {ra  ayia),  viz.,  "the  illocal  place  of  the  infinite,  self-contained,  self- 
centred  Godhead,"  or  in  other  words,  into  "  that  eternal  heaven  of  God  Him- 
self which  is  His  own  manifested  eternal  glory,  and  existed  before  all  worlds." 
Other  problems,  that  may  be  scriptural,  are  only  remotely,  or  not  at  all  con- 
nected with  the  scripture  before  us.  To  notice  them  in  order  to  show  this  can 
only  distract  our  attention.  We  may  ignore  them  as  matters  not  suggested  by 
what  we  are  studying. 


ix.  13,  14.]        BLOOD   THAT   CLEANSES   THE    FLESH.  301 

tion  had,  by  virtue  of  tlieir  being  ordained  for  tliat  purpose. 
The  Apostle  says  if  they  sanctify,  using  the  present  tense.  This 
he  does  with  reference  to  the  convictions  and  practice  of  those  with 
whom  he  is  reasoning.  The  direct  address  to  his  readers 
expressed  by  the  following  uijmv  begins  with  the  present  words. 
They  used  these  rites  or  at  least  Ipoked  upon  them  as  having  the 
effect  mentioned  and  conceded.  In  contrast  with  this  he  says : 
How  much  more  will  the  blood  of  Christ  cleanse,  using  the  future 
tense.  The  motive  for  the  future,  compared  with  the  foregoing 
present,  is  that  the  effect  described  in  the  future  is  not  a  matter 
of  conviction  and  experience  to  those  addressed  as  the  other  is. 
Nor  can  it  be  while  they  use  the  other.  It  will  be,  if  they  see 
that  power  of  the  blood  of  Christ  as  it  is  now  represented.  The 
Apostle  says  you  and  not  "us,"  as  he  uses  the  first  person  plural 
X.  10,  19,  22,  because  he  does  not  share  the  convictions  that  need 
correction.  Thus  the  progress  of  thought  in  our  passage  con- 
firms the  reading  u/zoiv,  instead  of  tj/j-w'^  ^  ver.  14,  which  is,  how- 
ever, sufficiently  established  on  other  grounds.  The  last  preced- 
ing direct  address  to  the  readers  was  at  vi.  2. 

The  Apostle  cannot  mean  to  represent  here  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  will  cleanse  consciences  so  as  to  effect  a  perfect  inward 
spiritual  relation  toward  God,  and  do  it  much  more  than  the 
Levitical  ordinances  referred  to  will  do  what  is  ascribed  to  them. 
It  is,  indeed,  the  truth,  that  the  blood  of  Christ  cleanses  from  all 
sin,  and  in  due  season  the  Apostle  expresses  it.^  But  not  here. 
Whether  we  take  :  Much  more  to  mean  much  more  easi/i/,,  or  7nuch 
more  perfectly,  it  is  impossible  to  impute  such  reasoning  to  such 
an  Author,  and  to  an  Apostle.  One  cannot  reason  a  minori  ad 
majus  by  using  terms  that  have  nothing  in  common.  Such,  how- 
ever, would  be  the  procedure,  did  one  say  :  The  blood  of  bulls 
cleanses  the  flesh ;  much  more,  then,  must  the  blood  of  Christ  cleanse 
the  conscience,  i.  e.,  give  inward  purity.^  This  might  be  rhetoric, 
but  not  argument ;  as  one  might  say  :  A  bath  cleanses  the  body; 
much  more  the  word  of  God  cleanses  the  soul.  The  Apostle,  how- 
ever, uses  argument,  not  rhetoric.     Moreover,  if  a  suppressed 

'  Alford.  *  See  below  in  vcr.  26  b. 

'  Comp.  Davidson. 


302     BLOOD    THAT   CLEANSES    FROM    DEAD    WORKS,   [ix.  13,  14 

premise  could  be  found  ^  to  adjust  the  above  minor  and  major  in 
the  sense  that  the  major  would  represent  that  Christ's  blood  more 
easily  or  more  perfectly  cleanses  the  conscience  of  guilt  than  the 
Levitical  ordinances  gave  fleshly  purity,  then  we  have  a  represen- 
tation that  conflicts  with  what  we  otherwise  believe  on  Scriptural 
grounds.     The  blood  of  Christ  will  cleanse  from  guilt,  and  will 
certainly  and  fully  do  so.^     But  scripture  and,  what  is  more  to  the 
point,  our  epistle,^  teaches  that  all  that  blood,  with  all  that  gives  it 
value  was  needed  to  procure  that  benefit.     Nothing  justifies  us  in 
regarding  it  as  more  than  enough.     On  the  other  hand,  the  blood 
of  goats  and  bulls  sufficed  for  the  cleansing  for  which  they  were 
appointed.     And  both  the  latter  and  the  former  were  efficient  by 
virtue  of  the  same  thing,  viz.,  God's  having  ordained  them  for 
that  effect.     Effects  referred  to  a  cause  whose  sufficiency  is  iden- 
tical cannot  properly  be  spoken  of  as  if  one  had  more  facile  or 
more  perfect  efficiency  than  the  other  in  their  respective  spheres. 
The  Author  does  not  represent  such  a  thing.     What  he  repre- 
sents is  something  that  enforces   the   truth  affirmed,  ver.  12, 
that  Christ  obtained  an  everlasting  redemption  from  the  imposed 
ordinances  of  the  flesh.     Our  vers,  13,  14  are  an  appeal  to  his 
readers,  who  rely  on  the  efficacy  of  these  ordinances,  to  see  in 
the  blood  of  Christ  a  greater  efficacy  of  the  same  kind.     By  the 
blood  of  goats  and  bulls  they  were  sanctified  in  the  cleansing  of 
the  flesh,  so  that  they  might  appear  before  God  in  the  service  on 
earth.     But  as  often  as  they  offered  themselves  for  such  service 
it  must  be  by  repeating  the  cleansing.     If  they  saw  such  efficacy 
in  these  things,  why  did  they   not  see  a  greater  efficacy  in  the 
blood  of  Christ,  viz.,   that  it  cleansed  not  merely  the  flesh,  and 
for  a  year,  or  till  the  next  contact  with  a  corpse,  but  that  it 
cleansed  them  forever  and  thus  perfectly,  so  that  their  consciences 
even  were  cleansed  from  feeling  any  need  of  renewed  recourse  to 
these  fleshly  ordinances  of  cleansing  ?     Such  an  argument  is  a 
pure  instance  of  a  minori  ad  majits.*     The  Apostle  both  has  the 
thought  and  attaches  importance  to  it,  that  the  blood  of  Christ 

^  Davidson  finds  it  in  the  following  clauses. 

2  Comp.  below  on  ver.  26  b.  '  Comp.  ii.  10,  11,  17. 

*  Comp.  the  a  fortiori,  x.  28,  29 ;  also  the  a  minori,  Matt.  vi.  30 ;  Eom.  v.  10. 


ix.  13,  14.]  ARGUMENT   OF    IX.    11-14  303 

sanctifies  tlie  people  of  God  to  the  cleansing  of  the  flesh  or  body, 
as  appears  when  he  says  :  "  having  had  our  hearts  sprinkled  from 
an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  As 
he  expresses  the  thought  elsewhere,  we  may  suppose  he  means  it 
here,  if  it  fits  lierc,  and  the  present  expressions  are  adequate  to 
represent  it.^  In  presenting  this  argument,  the  Apostle  assumes  the 
efficacy  of  the  blood  of  goats  and  bulls,  in  the  matter  of  cleans- 
ing, and  opposes  to  it  the  blood  of  Christ  with  the  statement  of 
an  efficacy  it  has  shown,  which  is  also  assumed  as  admitted,  and 
from  this  he  presses  the  inference,  that  the  latter  will  cleanse  the 
conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God. 

The  Apostle  vers.  11,  12  has  represented  Christ  as  High  Priest 
of  good  things  to  come,  i.  e.,  that  have  come,  and,  pointing  the 
correspondence  to  the  high  priest's  action  on  the  great  day  of 
atonement,  has  first  stated,  that  by  means  of  His  own  blood 
Christ  entered  the  Holies.  By  this  entrance  He  offered  Himself 
in  the  presence  of  God.^  In  his  present  appeal  to  the  blood  of 
Christ  as  contrasted  with  the  blobd  of  goats  and  bulls,  he 
opposes  to  what  the  latter  effects,  what  the  blood  of  Christ  has 
effected,  viz.,  that  by  it  Christ  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God, 
meaning  what  Christ  did  when  He  entered  the  Ht)lies.  That 
such  is  the  meaning,  and  not  that  the  clause  :  who  offered  himself 
unto  God,  is  epexigetical  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  meaning  that  He 
offered  Himself  up  as  a  sacrifice  on  the  cross,^  appears,  not  only 
from  the  logical  connection  just  noticed,  but  also  from  the  mean- 
ing of  7rp(>/T(fi/n'.v  as  distinguished  from  (hafipti'^  explained  under 
vii.  27.^  Did  the  Apostle  mean  to  refer  here  to  Christ's  shedding 
His  blood  on  the  cross,  he  would  here,  as  at  vii.  27,  use  the  word 
a'Mx<pipziv.  But  meaning  to  point  to  an  effect  of  that  blood  when 
shed,  viz.,  that  by  it  Christ  entered  tlie  Holies,  as  the  high  priest 
entered  the  earthly  Holies,  and  so  offered  Himself  to  God,  he 
uses  npoacpiiniy.  In  SO  understanding  the  r.poiTfip.  as  relating  to 
what  Christ  did  when  entering  heaven,  and  not  as  relating  to 
what  He  did  on  the  cross,  we  do  not  lend  ourselves  to  interest  of 

'x.  22;  comp.  xii.  24;  xiii.  12.  *  Conip.  bolow  on  ver.  24. 

^AsdeWette,  Del.,  Alfonl,  Davidson. 

*  Comp.  von  llof.,  in  loc,  and  on  ver.  14;  and  above  on  viii.  3. 


304  BY   AN   ETERNAL    SPIRIT,  [ix.  13,  14. 

the  Socinian  interpretation  which  does  the  same.^  The  latter 
ignores  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrifice  oji  the  cross.  The  meaning 
we  obtain  assumes  it. 

In  describing  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  blood,  that  by  it  he  offered 
Himself  without  spot  to  God,  the  Apostle  adds  the  further  con- 
sideration, viz.,  that  He  so  offered  Himself  by  an  eternal  spirit. 
The  did  is  instrumental,^  as  we  found  it  in  vers.  11,  12,  and 
expresses  by  what  means  Christ  offered  Himself  to  God.  It  was 
by  virtue  of  what  He  was,  viz.,  an  eternal  spirit ;  for  the  expres- 
sion describes  Christ  Himself,^  and  does  not  mean  the  Holy 
Spirit,  either  directly  *  or  indirectly.^  The  expression  introduces 
under  another  form  the  notion  already  emphasized  so  much,  that 
Christ  is  a  High  Priest  forever,  and  that  He  forever  lives  to  make 
intercession  for  His  people.  It  answers  to  the  expression  vii.  1 5, 
where,  in  contrast  with  the  Levitical  priesthood,  Christ  is  said  to 
be  a  priest  "  according  to  the  power  of  an  indissoluble  life.^  In 
fact  our  present  expression  :  who  by  an  eternal  spirit  offered  him- 
self without  spot  to  God,  resumes  in  brief  the  description  of 
Christ,  vii."26-28.  Added  to  the  expression  :  the  blood  of  Christ, 
it  expands  the  effect  of  that  blood,  representing  it  as  an  ever- 
living  and  valid  effect.  From  this  the  inference  is  pressed: 
how  much  more  will  that  blood  cleanse  your  conscience  from  dead 
works  to  serve  the  living  God. 

Cleansing  the  conscience  from  works  does  not  express  an 
antithesis  to :  sanctifying  to  the  cleanness  of  the  flesh.  It 
expresses  the  same  notion  raised  to  a  higher  power.  We  may 
compare  for  illustration  Paul's  argument,  Rom.  v.  10 :  "  If, 
while  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  through  the 
death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  shall  we  be  saved 
by  his  life."  In  this  statement,  "  saved  "  is  not  the  antithesis  of 
"  reconciled,"  but  the  same  notion  expressed  in  its  perfected 
result.  So,  also,  cleanness  of  the  flesh  effected  by  sprinkling  of 
blood,  and  of  ashes  of  an  heifer,  is  effected  in  its  highest  power, 

'  See  that  use  in  Grot.,  Bleek ;  quoted  in  von  Hof.,  Stuart,  Alford. 

*  So  von  Hof.  ^  Davidson.  *  Against  de  Wette,  Bengal,  Lindsay. 

'  Against  Bleek  in  Del. 

'  Biehm  p.  525  sqq.,  Davidson ;  against  von  Hof. 


ix.  13,  14.]  DEiVD   AVORKS.  305 

i.  e.,  in  perfection,  when  the  conscience  is  cleansed  from  these 
works,  so  as  no  more  to  feel  the  need  of  them.  This  receives  a 
clearer  expression,  when,  at  x.  14,  we  read,  "  by  one  offering  he 
has  perfected  forever  them  that  arc  sanctified." 

The  Apostle  calls  the  Levitical  rites  of  cleansing,  dead  works ; 
for  such  is  his  reference  in  using  this  expression.'  By  calling 
them  dead,  the  Apostle  pronounces  the  sentence  of  their  abroga- 
tion, and  introduces  a  topic,  in  the  fashion  we  have  observed 
before,  that  he  will  resume  and  elaborate.^  They  are  dead  works 
because  they  belong  to  a  time  that  has  expired,  and  have  thus 
lost  all  validity  ;  and  because  they,  any  way,  could  not  make 
perfect  as  to  conscience.^  Thus,  also,  they  are  dead  as  unable  to 
impart  or  sustain  life,  and  are  unfit  to  use  in  serving  God.  The 
Apostle  has  used  the  expression  dead  works  vi.  1.  And  we  may 
note,  by  the  way>  that  the  present  importance  attached  to  them 
as  a  matter  of  instruction,  confirms  the  view  of  their  place  in 
"going  on  to  full-growth,"  that  we  presented  there.  At  vi.  1, 
the  Apostle  speaks  of  "  repentance  from  dead  works  ;  "  here  of 
"  cleansing  the  conscience  from  dead  works."  As  we  find  the 
expression  :  dead  works  no  where  else,  we  can  infer  its  meaning 
only  from  the  Author's  usage.  The  notion  vi.  1  and  here  is 
identical.  A  conscience  that  needs  cleansing  from  dead  works  is 
a  conscience  of  dead  works  in  a  sense  like  that  in  which  we  speak 
of:  "conscience  of  an  idol."*  And  the  conscience  is  cleansed  of 
dead  works  when  it  repents  of  them,  *.  e.,  forsakes  them  for  just 
and  sufficient  reason.  The  reason  is  sufficient  when  one  sees  the 
efficacy  of  Christ's  blood.  By  that  blood  Christ  offered  Himself 
to  God.  To  gather  up  the  full  expression  of  this  thought  from 
some  of  the  expressions  of  our  epistle,  let  us  say  :  by  that  blood 
Christ  entered  the  Holies,  that  is.  He  entered  into  heaven  itself; 
to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us,  and  by  that  offered  Him- 
self without  spot  to  God,  by  which  is  meant  His  correspondence 
to  a  sacrifice,  without  blemish  ;  and  there  He  is  the  High  Priest 
we    need,  holy,  guileless,  undefiled,  removed    from  sinners,  a 

1  So  de  Wette,  Del.,  etc.  ^  .x.  1-18.  «  vii.  19  ;  i.x.  0,  10. 

*  Corap.  1  Cor.  viii.  7  ;  whether  tlie  correct  reading  or  not,  it  is  correct  in 
thought. 

20 


306  THE    LIVING   GOD.  [ix.  13,  14. 

high  priest  of  good  things  to  come,  i.  e.,  that  have  come.  Such 
is  the  comprehensive  thought  from  which  the  Apostle  makes  the 
self-evidential  inference  :  how  much  more.  The  special  point  is, 
that  by  His  blood  He  offered  Himself  to  God,  with  the  thought 
understood,  that  it  was  for  us.  The  resistless  inference  is,  that 
by  that  blood  they,  the  readers,  may  present  themselves  to  God, 
and  having  that  cleansing  they  need  no  other,  and  their  conscience 
is  freed  from  ever  having  recourse  to  the  ordinances  on  which 
they  have  heretofore  relied,  which  are  consequently  only  dead 
works  for  them.  They  are  thus  and  always  in  a  relation  to  God 
that  permits  them  to  approach  Him  and  engage  in  His  service.^ 

The  Apostle  says  :  to  serve  the  living  God.  And  here  we  may 
notice  that  at  vi.  1,  "  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  faith  on 
God,"  is  a  conjunction  of  notions  similar  to  :  "  cleansing  the  con- 
science from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God."  Living  God 
must  be  more  than  an  elegant  antithesis  to  dead  works.^  "  It 
stands  in  correct  and  logical  antithesis  to  dead  works."  ^  This 
we  may  assume  in  the  interpretation  of  such  an  Author,  who 
never  wastes  a  word.  Yet  what  that  antithesis  is  exactly,  is  hard 
to  detect,  as  the  varying  explanations  of  expositors  prove. 

Taken  without  the  qualification  living ;  in  order  to  serving 
God  has  a  plain  meaning.  It  is,  first  of  all,  approaching  God 
with  boldness,  assured  that  through  our  High  Priest  we  may  do 
so,  and  do  it  continually,  as  the  Apostle  has  exhorted  iv.  16,  and 
at  vii.  25  reiterated  the  sufficient  ground.  In  the  second  place, 
and  that  is  the  thought  expressed  here,  it  is  a  service  such  as  the 
second  covenant  demands,  when,  as  the  language  of  Jeremiah, 
quoted  viii.  10,  shows,  the  laws  of  God  are  written  in  the  hearts 
of  His  people.  The  service  must  be  such  as  corresponds  to  those 
laws.  The  first  notion  the  Apostle  reiterates  again  x.  19-22,  in 
a  concluding  resume,  and  again  with  amplification  xii.  22-24. 
The  second,  relating  to  serving  God,  he  amplifies  xii.  28 — xiii.  6. 
With  this  serving  God,  the  notion  living  God  must  consist.  As 
the  approaching  and  the  serving  God  are  notions  that  are  reiter- 
ated by  the  Author,  we  may  expect  to  find  the  notion  he  would 
express  by  living  God  recurring  in  the  same  connection.  At  xii. 
»  X.  19-23.  ^  As  Calvin.  =»  Ebrard. 


ix.  13,  14.]  A    NEW    PHASE   OF   THOUGHT.  307 

22  the  approach  to  God  is  described  as  "  coming  to  the  city  of 
the  living  God,"  and  in  the  same  context  (vers.  28,  29)  we  read : 
"  Let  us  have  grace  whereby  we  may  offer  service  {karpeuw/uv) 
well-pleasing  to  God  with  reverence  and  awe  ;  for  our  God  is  a 
consuming  fire."  These  thoughts  remind  us  of  iii.  12  with  its 
warning,  and  of  iv.  12  sqq.  where  the  Apostle  has  said  in  mina- 
tory language ;  "  The  word  of  God  is  living  and  active  and 
sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,"  etc.  And  with  a  similar 
sentiment,  he  says,  x.  31  :  "  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  living  God."  Moreover,  the  last  quoted  expression 
is  joined,  as  we  shall  see,  to  a  warning  against  such  a  return  to 
legal  observances  for  sanctification  as  is  tantamount  to  rejecting  the 
Son  of  God  and  despising  the  blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith 
one  was  sealed.  We  are  thus  constrained  to  think  that  the 
expression  living  God  in  our  verse,  is  meant  to  intimate  the  same 
thing  that  is  more  fully  expressed  x.  31 .  Conjoined  with  dead  works 
it  is  a  preliminary  note  of  the  alarm  that  is  fully  sounded  at  x. 
2f6-31.  While  the  present  argument  shows  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  sanctifies  so  as  finally  and  perfectly  to  fit  one  to  serve  God, 
the  word :  living  warns  the  reader  to  beware  of  serving  God 
with  works  that  are  ordinances  of  the  flesh,  and  belong  to  a 
broken  covenant  that  is  replaced  by  a  new  covenant ;  that  are 
dead  works  because  God  has  abrogated  them,  and  must  be  deadly 
works  to  him  who  brings  them  to  the  living  God.  It  is  because 
of  this  background  of  his  thoughts,  which  he  will  soon  bring  into 
the  foreground,  that  the  Apostle  does  not  say  simply,  that  the 
blood  of  Christ  cleanses  the  conscience  from  works  of  the  flesh  to 
serve  God  ;  but  he  says  from  dead  works,  to  serve  the  living 
God. 

The  Apostle  has  pointed  to  the  blood  of  Christ  and  ITis  offer- 
ing of  Himself  by  it  to  God,  and  how,  by  virtue  of  His  being  an 
eternal  spirit,  what  He  did  has  everlasting  efficacy,  so  that 
His  blood  cleanses  so  com])letely  from  transgressions  that  the 
conscience  feels  no  more  need  of  the  Levitical  cleansings.  In 
this,  while  still  pressing  the  force  of  the  truth  thus  far  made  so 
prominent  in  this  epistle,  viz.,  that  Christ  lives,  he  has  given 
special  prominence  to  His  death,  and  the  effect  of  that.     This 


308  THE    DEATH    OF   CHRIST.  [ix.  15. 

introduces  a  transition  in  his  discourse,  which,  to  x.  18,  presses 
the  importance  and  significance  of  Christ's  having  died.  In 
vers.  13,  14  he  has  interrupted  the  course  of  his  argument  by 
one  of  those  direct  appeals,  so  characteristic  of  the  first  six  cliap- 
ters ;  but  a  shorter  one.  It  is  as  if  he  paused  after  a  convinc- 
ing presentation  of  his  subject,  to  give  it  instant  eiFect,  and  claim 
the  legitimate  fruit  of  it  on  the  spot.  This  trait  of  the  context, 
and  the  characteristic  of  the  subsequent  discourse  just  noted,  and 
especially  the  totally  new  phase  of  thought  presented  in  the  use 
of  dia^xfj  in  the  changed  sense  of  testament,  require  us  to  recog- 
nize that  the  discourse  takes  a  fresh  start.'  This  understanding: 
requires  us  to  take  ruuro  as  referring  forward  to  what  follows.^ 
The  reference  to  what  precedes  is  admissible  only  so  far  as  vers. 
13,  14,  represent  a  need  for  cleansing  from  transgressions  that  is 
supplied  by  Christ's  death.^  But  as  that  notion  is  resumed  in 
the  following  dq  ar^olurpioGiv  .  .  .  Tzapa[idatwv,  the  reference  back- 
ward is  gratuitous. 

Ver.  1 5.  And  for  this  cause  he  is  mediator  of  a  new  cove- 
nant, that  death  having  taken  place  for  redemption  of  the  trans- 
gressions under  the  first  covenant,  they  that  have  been  called  may 
receive  the  promise  of  the  eternal  inheritance. 

Though  the  discourse  takes  a  fresh  start,  it  has  a  close  connec- 
tion with  what  immediately  precedes.  The  Apostle  is  dealing 
with  readers  that  have  a  conscience  of  sins,  viz.,  transgressions  as 
determined  by  the  Mosaic  ordinance,  and  think  they  can  be 
cleansed  from  them  only  by  the  prescribed  Levitical  rites.  He 
has  just  concluded  a  representation  that  shows  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  gives  that  cleansing  in  a  perfect  way,  viz.,  once  for  all. 
He  now  assumes  this  as  proved,  and  does  so  expressly  in  the 
clause :  for  redemption  of  the  transgressions  under  the  first  cove- 
nant, and  proceeds  to  represent  the  eifect.  By :  transgressions 
under  the  first  covenant,  is  not  meant  those  of  all  mankind ;  * 
nor  does  it  directly  mean  the  transgressions  of  the  covenant  peo- 

^  Comp.  Davidson. 

*  With  Ebrard  and  many ;  see  in  Liin. ;  against  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford,  von  Hof., 
Davidson,  etc. 
'  Comp.  Davidson.  *  Against  Alford. 


ix.  15.1  XoTpwffc?,  aTToXurpujffii.  309 

pie  iu  all  the  past  since  God  gave  the  first  covenant,  as  if  the 
Apostle  expressed  that  Christ's  death  had  retrospective,  or  ex  post 
facto  efficacy.'  The  Apostle  has  the  covenant  people  of  the  present 
time  iu  mind,  particularly  his  readers,  and  their  transgressions, 
or  conscience  of  transgressions  under  the  first  covenant.  He  has 
already  represented  the  concrete  case  (vers.  13,  14)  as  it  concerns 
his  readers.  He  now,  for  his  further  argument  presents  the  truth 
iu  the  abstract.  By  compelling  inference,  however,  this  retro- 
spective effect  of  Christ's  death  must  be  believed,  since  all  must 
be  saved  by  Him,  and  in  the  same  way.  And  this  inference  is 
corroborated  by  the  statement  of  xi.  40.  As  at  ver.  1 2  the  Apostle 
calls  the  eifect  of  Christ's  sacrifice  Xbrpwaiv,  so  he  here  calls  it 
a-oXurpojav^.  The  former  applies  to  the  persons  delivered ;  the 
latter  to  the  transgressions  from  whose  consequences  they  are 
delivered.^  We  can  only  render  both  words  in  English  by 
redemption,  meaning  deliverance.^  This  return  to  substantially 
the  same  expression  as  iu  ver.  12,  shows  that  the  alternate  or 
synonymous  expression  "cleanse  the  conscience"  ver.  14  means, 
as  we  have  represented,  a  cleansing  so  complete  that  one  is  deliv- 
ered forever  from  all  concern  about  Levitical  means  of  cleansing. 
The  very  transgressions  themselves  have  been  redeemed.  Thus 
assuming  the  truth  of  the  foregoing  representation,  and  expressly 
resuming  it,  the  Apostle  says,  referring  to  the  expression  of  it  by 
Tiiozi) :  For  this  cause  he  is  mediator  of  a  new  covenant  that  death 
having  taken  place— those  called,  may  receive  the  promise  of  the 
eternal  inheritance.  In  this  statement  the  empliatic  notion  is 
presented  iu  :  death  having  taken  place.  It  is  by  means  of  this 
that  those  called  receive  the  promise  which  is  the  chief  effect,  the 
deliverance  from  transgressions  being  the  preliminary  condition.* 
This  reference  to  trangressions  under  the  first  covenant,  and  the 
term  those  called  (comp,  iii.  1),  and  the  mention  of  tlie  promise 
of  the  everlasting  inheritance,  continue  to  show  that  the  Apostle 
has  particularly  in  mind  here,  as  in  all  that  has  preceded,  purely 
his  Jewish  readers,  and  that  his  aim  is  to  show  how  Christ  is 
mediator  of  a  new  covenant  for  them.     That  He  is  such  a  ^lodia- 

*  Against  von  Ilof.,  Del.,  Lindsay,  Davidson.  '  (  omp.  xi.  35. 

*  See  on  ver.  12.  *  Comp.  viii.  12. 


310  A  MEDIATOE   BY   DEATH.  [ix.  15. 

tor  has  been  already  represented  viii.  6-13.  And  following  that, 
the  betterness  of  that  covenant  and  the  superiority  of  Him  that 
mediates  it  have  been  represented  by  displaying  the  nature  of 
that  covenant  itself,  and  as  compared  with  institutions  belonging 
to  the  first  covenant,  and  by  showing  what  Christ  accomplishes, 
Christ  that  lives  forever  a  High  Priest  at  God's  right  hand.  Now 
it  is  to  be  shown  what  a  mediator  he  is  hy  virtue  of  His  dying. 
Not  that  this  aspect  of  Christ's  mediatorial  work  has  been  with- 
out mention  in  the  previous  discourse.  From  i.  3  ("  having 
made  purification  of  sins ")  to  the  present,  it  has  received  fre- 
quent mention,  which  has  grown  in  distinctness,  all  which  has 
served  to  bring  it  more  and  more  into  prominence.  To  the 
present,  however,  the  dying  of  Christ  and  the  efficacy  of  His 
blood  has  kept  that  relative  place  in  the  discourse  expressed  at  i. 
3,  where  the  notion  is  introduced  participially  as  related  to  the 
chief  theme,  viz.,  Christ  the  high  priest  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  on  high.  Now  it  is  presented  for  particular  considera- 
tion. Christ  that  has  been  represented  as  the  mediator  of  a  new 
covenant  in  other  respects,  is  here  said  to  be  such  on  this  account, 
viz.,  so  that  (oVw?,  expressing  the  aim,  and  {^avdrou  ysvo/xivou,  with 
the  consequences  ascribed  to  it  being  the  thing  in  view,  or  the 
final  cause),  death  having  taken  place,  the  called  may  receive  the 
promises.  On  receive  the  promises,  comp.  vi.  15.  Evidently 
^avdroo  yevo/i.  is,  as  has  been  said,  the  emphatic  notion.  In  view 
of  the  foregoing  discourse,  nothing  else  in  the  verse  that  is 
affirmed  of  the  mediatorship  is  singular  enough  to  receive 
emphasis.^  But  the  sufficient  reason  for  understanding  the 
emphasis  to  be  there  is,  that  the  dying  of  Christ  is  immediately 
discoursed  upon  with  a  view  to  showing  the  need  of  it  and  the 
efficacy  of  it. 

Our  ver.  15  presents  the  theme  of  discourse  till  x.  18.  The 
clause  :  death  having  taken  place  .  .  .  the  promise  presents  a  topic 
that  is  amplified  in  vers.  16-28,  in  which  vers.  16-26  deal  with 
the  emphatic  thought,  that  Christ's  dying  was  necessary  to  His 
being  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  while  the  (at  present) 
emphatic  thought  of  what  is  the  final  effect  of  that  death,  viz., 

^  Against  Del.,  who  emphasizes  Kaiv^g ;  and  Lun.,  who  emphasizes  6iad7)KT)q. 


ix.  16.]  ARGUMENT  OF  ix.   15-22.  311 

receiving  the  promise  by  those  that  are  called,  reappears  vers.  27, 
28,  iu  :  shall  appear  .  .  to  them  that  wait  for  him,  unto  salvation. 
In  vers.  16-26  the  Apostle  shows  the  necessity  for  Christ's  death 
by  an  accumulation  of  appeals  fitted  to  meet  the  objections  of 
Jewish  minds  that  found  in  the  cross  of  Christ  a  stumbling  block. 
The  first  appeal  vers.  16, 17  (which  according  to  what  we  observe 
to  be  a  part  of  the  Author's  style,  starts  from  the  latest  expres- 
sion used,  viz.,  the  everlasting  inheritance),  cites  the  case  of  testa- 
ments and  common  usage  regarding  them.  This  is  followed  (vers. 
18-22)  by  appeal  to  what  was  true  of  the  first  covenant,  citing 
four  (4)  particulars,  viz.,  (1.)  that  it  was  dedicated  with  sprink- 
ling blood  (ver.  18-20) ;  (2.)  and  (y.a\—oi)  that  the  tabernacle 
and  its  appurtenances  were  likewise  sprinkled  (ver.  21);  (3.) 
and  (xai)  that  almost  all  things  are  cleansed  with  blood  (ver.  22  a)  ; 
(4.)  and  (xui)  the  acknowledged  truth,  that  apart  from  shedding 
of  blood  there  is  no  remission  (ver.  22  b).  Following  these 
appeals  the  Apostle  represents  positively  the  operation  of  Christ's 
death  as  it  corresponds,  in  respect  to  shedding  blood,  to  those 
necessary  uses  of  blood  in  connection  with  the  Old  Covenant  that 
he  mentions  in  his  appeals. 

In  illustration  of  the  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  order  to  His 
being  mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  the  first  appeal  is  to  common 
usage  in  respect  to  testaments. 

Ver.  16.  For  where  a  testament  [is]  there  must  of  necessity  be 
death  of  the  testator. 

Regarding  the  precise  meaning  of  <fipe<Ti9at,  which  we  leave  as 
good  as  not  translated  at  all,^  we  may  be  sure  that  the  literal  or 
primary  meaning :  "  be  brought "  ^  gives  no  sense.  Any  one  of 
several  of  the  secondary  senses  of  this  much-used  and  well-worn 
word,  e.f/.,  "alleged,  implied,"  ^  answers  very  well.  It  is  obvious 
that  what  is  meant  is,  that  when  a  testament  is  mentioned  as 
something  in  force,  it  is  understood  of  course  that  the  testator  has 
died.  We  may  even  suppose  that  the  Author  mentally  supplies 
the  same  \erh  {(fip—ai)  in  the  first  clause  of  our  sentence  that  he 
uses  in  the  second,  instead  of  the  iartv  of  our  translation.     The 

'  With  versions  of  1611,  1881.  'ibid,  margin. 

»SoAlford. 


312  diai^rjXT}.  [ix.  16. 

rendering  would  then  be  :  "  where  a  testament  is  mentioned  ^  or 
adduced,  there  must  necessarily  be  mentioned  the  death  of  the 
testator."  As  for  the  meaning  of  dta>'^rjxrj,  it  is  useless  to  try  ^  to 
give  it  here  any  other  sense  than  testament,  or  last  will.^  We 
must,  as  well  as  we  can,  account  for  the  sudden  use  of  the  word 
in  this  sense,  introduced  without  preface,  and  that  in  a  context 
(vers.  15,  19,  20),  that  uses  it  chiefly  in  the  sense  of  covenant. 

'^  The  charge  brought  against  the  writer  on  account  of  his 
transition  of  meaning  in  Siai'/Tjxrj  is  without  ground.  He  is  think- 
ing in  Greek  [and  writing  to  those  that  do  the  same.]  In  Greek 
dia^rjxTj  has  these  two  meanings ;  not  divided  oiF  from  one  another 
by  any  such  line  of  demarcation  as  when  expressed  by  two  sepa- 
rate words,  but  both  lying  under  one  and  the  same  word.  What 
more  common,  or  more  ordinarily  accepted,  than  to  educe  out  of 
some  one  word  its  various  shades  of  meaning,  and  argue  on  each 
separately  as  regards  the  matter  in  hand  ?  Take  the  very  word 
'  Testament '  as  an  example.  In  our  common  parlance  it  now 
means  a  '  book  ; '  the  *  Old  Testament,'  the  book  of  the  former 
covenant,  the  '  New  Testament,'  the  book  of  the  latter.  But  we 
do  not  therefore  sink  the  other  and  deeper  meaning ;  nay,  we 
rather  insist  on  it,  that  it  may  not  become  lost  in  that  other  and 
more  familiar  one.  I  cannot  see  how  the  Writer's  method  of 
procedure  here  differs  essentially  from  this."  * 

Beside  this  justification  in  the  word  itself,  a  natural  suggestion 
for  the  present  appeal  (to  what  is  true  in  regard  to  a  testament) 
appears,  as  has  been  said  above,  in  the  mention  of  "  the  eternal 
inheritance,"  (ver.  15).  And  it  must  be  remembered,  moreover, 
in  this  connection  that,*  the  word  "  covenant,"  when  used  as  the 
name  for  that  which  determines  the  relations  between  God  and 
men,  has  a  sense  that  differs  from  its  ordinary  meaning.  That 
common  meaning  is  "  an  agreement  between  two  or  more  per- 
sons," implying  that  both  parties  are  active  in  giving  form  to 
what  is  agreed  on.  In  God's  covenants  this  has  no  place.  He 
alone  determines  the  relations,  though  two  are  parties  to  what  is 

^  Compare  Passow,  Lex.,  suh.  voce,  B.  2,  a.  *  As  von  Hof.,  Ebrard,  etc. 

'  G)mp.  Alford,  Del.,  Davidson,  etc. 

*  Alford  on  ver.  20 ;  comp.  Farrar.  '  See  on  viii.  12. 


IX. 


16.]  THE   CROSS   A    STUMBLINGh-BLOCK.  313 


determined.  This  makes  the  covenant  very  near  the  same  thing 
as  a  testament.^  When  to  this  is  added,  that  the  chief  blessings 
of  God's  covenant  are  future,  and  that  they  are  appropriately 
named  an  inheritance,^  we  have,  in  the  religious  use  of  dia^xT^, 
a  word  that  admits  of  such  a  transition  from  one  sense  of  it  to 
another  as  the  Apostle  here  makes,  and  that,  too,  as  here,  without 
other  preparation  or  preface,  than  appears  in  the  mention  of 
"  the  eternal  inheritance."  In  English  it  would  need  no  more 
preface  than  :  "  take  e.  g.,  the  case  of  a  testament." 

All  that  is  required  in  the  present  case  is,  that  we  see  some 
obvious  reason  for  such  an  appeal  to  what  is  true  in  regard  to 
a  testament.  Chrysostom  says :  "  It  was  likely  that  many 
weakly-disposed  persons  disbelieved  in  the  promises  of  Christ, 
just  because  Christ  had  died.  Paul,  then,  abundantly  confutes 
this  sentiment  by  instancing  this  example  taken  from  common 
custom.  For  this  very  reason,  he  says,  we  must  be  assured. 
Because,  not  while  testators  live,  but  when  they  are  dead, 
then  testaments  are  steadfast  and  obtain  force."  ^  Though  this 
is  reading  between  the  lines,  we  are  encouraged  to  concur  in  this 
conjecture,  because  we  know  from  other  sources  that  such  was 
precisely  the  common  difficulty  of  the  Jewish  mind  about  a  dead 
Messiah.  The  two  disciples  going  to  Emmaus  were  representa- 
tive of  all,  when  they  said  :  "  "We  hoped  that  it  was  he  which 
should  redeem  Israel."  The  death  of  an  agent  seemed  to  put  an 
end  to  his  purpose.  And  the  reply  of  Jesus  :  "  Behooved  it  not 
the  Christ  to  suffer  these  things  and  to  enter  into  his  glory"*  is 
the  text  for  all  Apostolic  replies  to  the  apprehension.*  It  is  the 
text  of  our  ix.  16-28.  Paul  declares  of  the  Jews  that  the  preach- 
ing of  Christ  crucified  was  to  them  a  stumbling  block  as  it  was 
to  the  Greeks  foolishness ;  ^  which  means  that  it  w:is  always  as 
much  the  one  as  the  other.  It  was,  thus,  something  inevitably 
to  be  encountered  in  the  presentation  of  such  matter  as  this 
epistle  offers,  seeing  it  was  written  to  Jews.  Thus  the  conjecture 
of  Chrysostom  is  most  reasonable. 

1  Comp.  Alford.  *  Comp.  Del. 

'  So  also  von  Ilof.  *  Luke  xxiv.  21,  26. 

*  Comp.  Heb.  i.  3 ;  Acts  iii.  17,  18,  21.  «  1  Cor.  i.  23. 


314  DEATH   GIVES   EFFECT  TO   A   WILL.  [ix.  17. 

This  explanation  of  the  present  language  of  the  Apostle  is 
further  recommended  when  we  consider  what  is  precisely  the 
scope  of  it.  For  this  we  must  take  the  following  verse  which 
completes  the  thought. 

Ver.  17.  (For  a  testament  is  steadfast  in  the  case  of  the  dead), 
since  does  it  ever  avail  when  the  testator  lives  ? 

In  this  verse  the  first  clause  is  parenthetical.^  It  affirms,  as 
something  well  understood,  what  is  true  of  a  testament  in  gen- 
eral.^ Hence  the  plural  vsxpai'i.^  This  prepares  for  the  affirma- 
tion that  follows,  which,  as  self-evidential,  is  stated  interrogatively, 
and  which  connects  with  ver.  16.  For  the  second  clause  is  in- 
terrogative, and  also  in  harmony  with  the  Author's  style.*  Thus 
the  Apostle's  forcible  representation  is  :  For  where  a  testament 
is  adduced  there  is  adduced  of  necessity  the  death  of  the  testator ; 
since  how  does  the  testament  ever  avail  when  he  lives  ?  When 
we  ask  :  what  is  proved  by  this  appeal  to  the  case  of  testaments  ? 
we  detect  nothing  that  bears  any  likeness  or  relation  to  the  blood 
sprinkling  on  which  vers.  18  sqq.  proceeds  to  discourse.  What 
is  proved  is  that  death  may  he  the  very  means  hy  which  the  pur- 
pose of  an  agent  is  made  effective.  The  occasion  for  such  proof 
would  be  the  apprehension  of  some,  that  the  death  of  an  agent 
put  an  end  to  his  purpose ;  and  so  the  Apostle's  readers  might 
think  concerning  the  death  of  Christ,  which  he  has  just  repre- 
sented as  having  such  an  important  relation  to  his  being  mediator 
of  a  new  covenant.  We  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  Apostle  in 
our  verses  16,  17  speaks  "  man-fashion,"^  meeting,  as  Chrysos- 
tom  conjectures,  an  unexpressed  objection  that  must,  in  such 
readers  as  his,  meet  him  on  the  very  threshold  of  his  subject 
when  he  proposes  to  represent  the  relation  of  the  dying  of  Christ 
to  his  being  mediator  of  a  new  covenant.  Before  showing  posi- 
tively the  import  of  this,  he  negatively,  and  in  general,  shows  that 

*  Against  Liin.,  where  see  cited  writers  in  favor. 

^  von  Hof.  '  Against  Alford. 

*So  Bengel,  von  Hof.,  etc.,  vers.  1881;  comp.  chap.  i.  5,  13,  14;  ii.  3;  iii. 
16-14 ;  ix.  14,  against  Winer,  Gram,  p.  480,  who  objects  that  it  is  too  rhetorical 
for  the  style ;  comp.  Davidson. 

^  Gal.  iii.  15  Kard  av^punov. 


ix.  18.]  PERPLEXING   INQUIRIES   OBVIATED.  315 

his  dying  does  not  ipso  facto  nullify  his  efficient  agency,  but  may 
be  the  very  means  of  giving  it  effect. 

It  may  be  observed  to  the  advantage  of  -the  view  just  pre- 
sented of  vers.  16,  17,  that  it  entirely  obviates  some  perplexing 
inquiries.  Such  an  inquiry  is  :  How  can  the  saving  work  of 
Christ  be  compared  to  a  testament  ?  Another  is :  Seeing  it  is  God 
that  makes  the  covenant  (viii.  8  sqq.),  in  what  sense  may  it  be 
said,  even  when  taking  dtaUrjxrj  in  the  sense  of  "  testament,"  that 
the  testator  must  die  to  give  it  effect  ?  On  this  follows  the  infer- 
ence that,  in  this  representation,  Christ  is  regarded  as  making 
the  testament,^  i.  e.,  the  covenant.  But  this  again  raises  the 
question  :  How  does  that  consist  with  the  previous  representation 
that  God  makes  the  covenant,  and  that  Christ  is  the  mediator  of 
the  covenant  ?  Again  :  what  likeness  is  there  between  the  efficacy 
of  Christ's  death,  as  heretofore  represented,  and  still  more 
pointedly  set  forth  ver.  18  sqq.,  and  the  effect  of  a  death  that 
leaves  a  testament  in  force  ?^  The  view  of  vers.  16,  17  presented 
above  makes  all  such  questions  gratuitous,  because  entirely  irrel- 
evant, there  being  nothing  to  require  their  consideration,  and 
barely  enough  to  suggest  them. 

Having  met  an  objection  by  the  representation  of  vers.  16,  17, 
the  Apostle  proceeds  in  close  connection  with  the  chief  thought 
of  ver.  15,  viz.,  that  on  account  of  his  dying  Christ  is  mediator 
of  a  new  covenant. 

Ver.  18.  Whence  neither  has  the  first  [covenant]  been  dedi- 
cated without  blood. 

The  o''/£v  =  whence  refers  back  to  ver.  15;'  as  at  ii.  17,  there 
is  a  similar  reference  back  beyond  a  verse  (16)  that  introduces  a 
collateral  thought  like  that  of  our  vers.  16,  17.  The  Apostle 
still  appeals  to  the  records  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  to  tlie  institu- 
tions of  Israel  in  their  most  original  form.  He  is,  in  fact,  about 
to  give  again  some  of  "the  first  principles"  relating  to  his  toj)ic 
as  he  has  done  twice  before.*  And  we  may  add,  that  the  seem- 
ing discrepancies  that  call  for  some  attention  here,  may  be  com- 
pared to  those  we  have  noticed  with  reference  to  what  the  Author 

'  Riehm  p.  595.  '  Comp.  Del.,  Calvin. 

*  Against  Alford  and  the  most.  *Comp.  vii.  1-3;  viii.  1-3. 


316  CX)VENANTS   DEDICATED   BY   BLOOD.       [ix.  19-22. 

has  represented  of  Melchizedek  and  of  the  high  priests.  In  all 
these  references  to  original  institutions,  the  Author  instances  some 
obvious  things  not  expressly  included  in  the  Mosaic  documents. 

In  our  verse  the  Apostle  resumes  the  consideration  of  the  new 
covenant.  It  is  :  covenant/  and  not :  "  testament,"  ^  that  must 
be  supplied  to  the  word  ^  7r/)o> -55  =  the  first.  This  is  obvious 
from  the  recurrence  to  the  antitheses  of  "new"(ver.  15)  and 
the  first  distinguishing  the  notion  dia^x-q,  with  which  viii.  7-13 
has  made  us  familiar.  In  the  verb  iyxatvi'^u)  =  to  dedicate,  "  in- 
augurate," we  have  an  additional  reason  for  referring  the 
o^%v  back  to  ver  15.  For  did  it  relate  to  vers.  16,  17  as  a  notion 
preparing  for  the  present  statement,  it  would  imply  that  the  death 
that  leaves  the  way  free  for  a  testament  to  have  force  may,  in 
some  sense,  be  considered  as  dedicating  or  inaugurating  the  testa- 
ment ;  a  notion  which  is  meaningless.  The  appeal  is  now  to 
another  and  distinct  transaction.  The  Apostle  writes  :  has  been 
dedicated,  the  perfect,  because  here,  as  in  similar  cases,^  he  does 
not  mean  the  transaction  in  its  historical  connection,  but  as  it  is 
recorded  in  the  Scripture  that  is  present  to  his  mind,*  or  as  an 
institution  that,  from  the  view-point  of  his  readers  is  of  present 
force.** 

The  reference  in  vers.  19,  20  is  to  the  great  covenant  sacrifice 
of  Exod.  xiv.,  which  followed  immediately  the  promulgation  of 
the  Sinaitic  code  of  laws  (Exod.  xix-xxiii),  then  first  committed 
to  writing  in  the  "  book  of  the  covenant."  ®  In  ver.  21,  the  ref- 
erence is  to  other  similar  transactions  ^  occurring  later  when  the 
Tabernacle  was  constructed.  What  is  specified  is  only  by  way 
of  example,  by  w^hich  examples  the  Apostle  would  call  to  mind 
a  great  variety  of  things  that,  according  to  law,  were  treated  in 
that  particular  manner  he  is  considering.     Thus  he  says  : 

Ver.  19.  For  when  every  commandment  had  been  spoken  ac- 
cording to  law  by  Moses  to  all  the  people,  taking  the  blood  of  the 
calves  and  goats  with  water  and  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop,  he 
sprinkled  both  the  book  itself  and  all  the  people,  20.  saying :  This 
is  the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  God  commanded  in  regard  to 

»  Davidson.  '  Alford.  ^  ^^  q^  9 .  ^;;j   13  «  ^^n  Hof. 

^  Alford.  ^  Del.  '  On  the  naX  6e  comp.  Del. 


ix.  19-22.]  SEEMING  DISCREPANCIES.  317 

you.  21.  And  moreover  the  tabernacle  and  all  the  vessels  of  the 
ministry  he  sprinkled  in  like  manner  with  the  blood.  [A  nd  he  add.s 
in  a  suinniaiy  way  :]  ver.  22.  And  almost  all  things  are  cleansed 
with  blood,  according  to  the  law ;  and  apart  from  shedding  of  blood 
there  is  no  remission. 

What  is  specified  ver.  21  "refers  probably  to  the  same  anoint- 
ing of  ,the  Tabernacle  and  its  furniture  as  that  mentioned  Lev. 
viii.  10  as  that  accompanying  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his 
sous.  Aaron's  consecration  is  enjoined  Exod.  xxix,  and  accom- 
plished Lev.  viii.  The  anointing  of  the  sanctuary  is  enjoined 
Exod.  xl.,  and  the  most  suitable  time  for  the  fulfillment  of  such 
injunction  would  be  where  we  think  we  find  it  at  Lev.  viii.  10."  * 

In  consulting  the  Mosaic  records,  four  seeming  discrepancies 
as  to  facts  are  observed,  (1)  Our  Author  says  goats  and  calves 
where  Exodus  mentions  only  calves.  (2)  Our  Author  says  : 
with  water  and  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop,  of  which  there  is  no 
mention  at  all  in  Exodus.  (3)  Our  Author  says  :  sprinkled  the 
book,  of  which  there  is  no  mention  in  Exodus.  (4)  Our  Autlior 
speaks  of  sprinkling  the  Tabernacle  and  all  the  vessels  of  the 
ministry  with  blood ;  Exod.  xl.  9,  speaks  only  of  "  anointing  with 
oil."  For  the  discussion  of  these  discrepancies  we  may  refer  to 
Delitzsch  in  loco  ^  and  adopt  his  results  as  fully  justified.  In  refer- 
ence to  (1)  he  says  :  "  I  prefer  to  assume  that  calves  and  goats  is 
used  by  our  Author  as  a  general  term  for  all  bloody  sacrifices." 
von  Hofmann  says  the  same,  adding :  "  The  expression  says,  as 
does  also  x.  4,  nothing  more  than  that  it  was  blood  of  beasts  that 
was  so  applied." 

In  reference  to  (2)  and  (3)  he  says  :  "  These  additions  to  the 
Mosaic  narrative,  whetlier  derived  from  tradition  or  conjecture, 
were  natural  and  obvious."  In  reference  to  (4)  lie  urges,  tJiat, 
beside  the  probability  of  it  from  analogy  "  we  have  here,  in  fact, 
a  literal  agreement  between  Josej)hus  and  tlie  writer  of  this  epistle 
in  reference  to  the  same  transactions."  Delitzsch  sums  up  :  ""We 
are  justified  in  concluding  that,  when  our  Author  goes  beyond 
the  letter  of  the  Torah,  botli  in  describing  the  covenant  sacrifices 
and  the  consecration  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  furniture,  he  fol- 

'  Del.  » Also  von  Ilof. 


318  REMISSION    MUST   BE    BY    BLOOD.  [ix.  19-22. 

lows  a  then  existing  tradition  of  which  other  traces  are  now  lost. 
The  main  point  with  him  is  evidently  this :  that  in  both  cases 
(the  earthly  copies  and  the  heavenly  realities)  the  dedication  did 
not  take  place  without  the  employment  of  sacrificial  blood." 

We  may,  then,  assume  the  correctness  of  the  Apostle's  state- 
ments and  disregard  the  disposition  of  some  to  make  difficulties. 
He  has  stated  enough  for  his  present  purpose,  and  it  is  with  his 
aim  in  making  this  representation  that  we  have  to  do.  The 
essential  thing  is,  that  the  people  that  were  joined  to  God  by 
covenant  to  serve  Him  (compare :  "  serve  the  living  God,"  ver. 
14,  and  "All  the  words  which  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do," 
Exod.  xxiv.  3),  and  the  written  instnmient  that  embodied  that 
covenant,  and  the  Tabernacle  with  all  its  furniture  that  was  the 
central  and  only  place  of  worship  and  service,  and  the  only  spot 
where  one  could  approach  and  enjoy  communion  with  God,  all 
were  consecrated  by  blood  to  be  what  was  required  for  the  rela- 
tions instituted  by  the  first  covenant.  In  the  comprehensive 
representations  of  ver.  22,  let  it  be  noted,  that  the  first  clause  is 
qualified  (by  gizU-j^  whose  force  extends  only  so  far),  ^  while  the 
second  is  universal.  The  statements  are,  (a)  that  almost  every- 
thing was  purified  by  blood  and  (zat'),  (6)  wherever  there  is  remis- 
sion it  must  be  by  blood  shedding.  This  last  (6)  expresses  the 
fundamental  notion  that  the  Apostle  would  illustrate  by  the 
appeal  to  what  was  true  of  the  first  covenant.  As  he  thus  con- 
centrates attention  on  that,  it  must  only  diifuse  and  weaken  our 
apprehension  of  his  subject  to  attempt  to  gather  up  the  typical 
import  of  the  details  that  came  in  for  notice.^  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  observation  that,  when  the  Apostle  instead  of: 
"behold  the  blood"  as  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  LXX.,  writes: 
this  is  the  blood  of  the  covenant  (ver.  20),  "  it  is  with  conscious  or 
unconscious  reference  to  the  sacramental  words  of  the  holy 
Eucharist"  (Matt.  xxvi.  28).^  Whether  this  observation  be  true 
or  not,  we  can  detect  no  influence  that  the  supposed  fact  may  have 
in  the  present  discourse. 

The  representation  of  vers.  18-22   is  in    order  to  show  the 

^  With  Del.,  against  von  Hof.,  LiJn.,  Alford. 

2  As,  e.  g.,  Del.  »  Del. 


ix.  23.]  COPIES   OF   THINGS   IN   HEAVEN.  319 

importance  of  "death  taking  place  "  for  the  efficiency  of  tliat  new 
covenant  that  Christ  mediates.  The  apjicals  vers.  1 8-22  have  force 
as  transactions  done  according^  to  law.  But,  in  addition,  the  matter 
adduced  is  jjroof  became  it  -was  typical.  The  things  that  are  men- 
tioned as  sprinkled  with  blood  were  copies  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  what  was  done  to  them  according  to  laio  was  a  copy  of  what 
was  done  in  reality  to  the  heavenly  things.  This  is  assumed,  with- 
out precise  and  direct  expression,  in  the  inferences  which  are  pre- 
sented in  the  following  vers.  (23-2G).  And  these  inferences 
represent  directly  and  positively  the  necessity  for  Christ's  dying  in 
order  to  His  being  mediator  of  the  new  covenant.  That  is,  some 
of  the  positive  grounds,  viz.,  such  as  correspond  to  matters 
referred  to  in  the  foregoing  appeals. 

It  is  an  advantage  in  the  foregoing  explanation  of  vers.  18- 
22,  that  no  perplexity  is  suggested  by  the  Author's  use  of  the 
terms :  dedicate,  sprinkle,  cleanse,  shedding  blood.  We  need  not 
explain  any  synonymous  signification  or  relation  that  they  may 
have,  or  relation  of  the  various  statements  to  one  another.  The 
notion  common  to  all  four  references  is  the  use  of  blood  accord- 
ing to  law.  The  references  are  to  distinct  things,  and  their  force 
is  cumulative,  and  therefore  is  apprehended  by  our  regarding 
them  separately,  as  so  many  items. 

Ver.  23.  It  [was]  necessary,  then,  for  the  copies  of  the  things 
in  the  heavens  to  be  cleansed  with  these,  but  the  heavenly  things 
themselves  with  better  sacrifices  than  these. 

It  does  not  matter  whether  we  supply  "was"  or  "is"  to 
necessary.  The  two  clauses  dependent  on  wmyxrj^  and  made  anti- 
thetical by  ///v  and  (^i,  have  necessity  predicated  of  them  in  the 
same  way.  Time  past  or  present  is  unimportant  to  the  notion 
expressed.  But  English  idiom  requires  the  use  of  a  copula, 
where  the  Greek  does  not.  What  is  affirmed  as  necessary  is  not 
that  either  the  heavenly  things  or  their  copies  must  be  cleansed. 
It  has  been  affirmed  viii.  3  that  Christ  must  have  something  to 
offer.  It  is  assumed,  as  something  understood,  that  such  cleans- 
ing takes  place.  But  that  being  so,  it  is  affirmed  that  in  the  case 
of  the  co])ies  it  must  be  with  these,  while  in  the  case  of 
the  heavenly  things  themselves  it  must  be  with  better  sacrifices 


320  HEAVENLY  THINGS  THEMSELVES.  [ix.  23. 

than  these.  The  point  of  the  contrast  presented  lies  especially  in 
the  fact  that  the  latter  must  be  better.  Sacrifice  is  the  means  of 
cleansing  in  either  case ;  but  in  the  latter  it  is  necessary  that  the 
means  should  be  better. 

It  is  not  obvious  at  a  glance  (a)  to  what  the  Apostle  refers  by 
TuoTot?  =  these ;  (6)  nor  why  he  should  speak  of  better  sacrifices 
(plural)  when  Christ's  was  one  sao-ifiee  ;  (e)  nor  why  he  should 
speak  at  all  of  cleansing  the  heavenly  things  themselves.  With 
regard  to  (a)  we  are  required,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  antithesis 
of  the  two  clauses  to  understand  that  sacrifices  are  meant  in  both 
instances,  with  regard  to  (6),  better  sacrifices  implies  sacrifices 
not  so  good.  Agreeably  to  this,  we  must  find  a  reference  of 
Tourots-  to  a  plural  notion  in  the  foregoing  context,  that  may  be 
comprehended  in  the  word  sacrifices.  But  this  does  not  require 
us  to  confine  its  reference  to  ver.  22,  nor  to  the  previous  mention 
of  "the  blood  of  calves  and  goats  "  (ver.  19).  In  xiii.  16,  the 
Apostle  uses  "  sacrifice "  for  religious  actions  that  involve  no 
shedding  of  blood.^  He  may,  then,  use  the  word  sacrifices  here 
as  comprehending  both  the  shedding  of  blood  and  especially  the 
subsequent  actions  attending  its  use,  as  described  vers.  19-22. 
This  comprehensive  reference  explains  the  tootoc?,  in  the 
neuter  plural  and  also  (6)  the  mention  of  sacrifices  in  the 
plural.  This  construction  does  not  involve  as  a  consequence 
that  we  must  understand  the  Apostle  to  imply  the  notion,  that 
(c)  what  Christ  does  in  cleansing  the  heavenly  things  themselves 
is  a  continuous  and  repeated  action,  as  "  minister  of  the  true  tab- 
ernacle "  (viii.  2).^  The  inauguration  of  the  first  covenant,  by 
shedding  blood  and  sprinkling  the  book  and  the  people,  and  the 
later  sprinkling  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  utensils,  were  successive 
acts  only  by  a  necessity  in  the  copies  of  the  heavenly  things  ;  like 
the  necessity  of  the  copy-priests  being  many,  by  reason  of  death 
hindering  their  continuing  (vii.  23).  As  Christ,  one  priest  for- 
ever, satisfies  the  relation  of  antitype  to  priests  that  are  many  by 
reason  of  death ;  so,  what  Christ  did  in  cleansing  the  heavenly 
things  satisfies  the  relation  of  type  and  antitype,  if  He  does  all  in 
one  transaction  of  shedding  His  blood  and  going  to  God. 

^  Comp.  von  Hof. ;  and  v.  7.  *  Against  von  Hof. 


ix,  23.]  CLEANSED    WITH    BETTER   SACRIFICES.  321 

The  shedding  of  blood,  and  actions  cleansing  the  various  things 
by  it  according  to  law,  constitute  the  plural  notion  expressed  by 
sacrifices.  The  copies  of  the  heavenly  things  expressly  mentioned 
in  the  context  are  the  first  covenant  represented  by  the  book,  the 
people,  and  the  tabernacle  and  its  utensils.  We  infer  that  the 
heavenly  things  themselves  involved  in  the  present  mention  are 
the  new  covenant,  the  people  of  God,  the  true  tabernacle,  and  its 
belongings  ;  (the  Apostle  mentions  "  an  altar  "  xiii.  1 0).  The 
antithesis  of:  rd  i7Z(>updvca='' heavenly  things,"  is  rd  ^-{yeux^z 
"  earthly  things,"  i.  c,  things  on  earth  :*  And  the  fundamental 
notion  of  the  antithesis  is,  that  heaven  where  God  is,  is  the  source 
whence  all  concerning  God  and  what  God  requires  of  man  is 
revealed.  When  it  is  revealed  it  is  on  earth.  What  is  not 
revealed  is  yet  in  heaven  with  God.  "  The  city  of  God,"  is  not 
yet  revealed,  hence  it  is  called  "  the  heavenly  Jerusalem."  ^ 
When  it  is  to  be  revealed,  it  will  "  come  down  out  of  heaven 
from  God."^  The  heavenly  things  themselves  are  part  of  the 
same  notion  as  "  Mount  Zion,  the  city  of  God,"  and  are  called 
heavenly  in  the  sense  just  expressed.  The  total  of  them  does 
not  make  heaven  (the  aozdv  rdv  obpavdv  of  ver.  24) ;  but  that  heaven 
is  where  they  are.  "  It  is  idle  to  attempt  the  representation 
of  this  truth  in  some  realistic  way.  We  have  a  representation  in 
xii.  22-24  that  may  suffice.  There  we  have  the  church  of  the 
first  born,  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect ;  the  Mediator  of 
the  new  covenant,  and  the  sprinkling,  and  God  the  Judge  of  all. 
The  pertinent  inquiry  here  is  (c)  :  why  should  the  Apostle  speak 
of  cleansing  these  heavenly  things  that  are  with  God  ?  It  does 
not  relieve  the  difficulty  of  the  Apostle's  words  to  confine  the 
predicate  :  cleansing  to  the  first  clause  of  our  verse,  and  supply, 
or  construe  it  to  mean  :  "  dedicate  "  in  the  second.*  For,  were 
this  grammatically  possible,  the  "dedication"  (ver.  18)  is  effected 
by  cleansing  (ver.  19).  Let  us  notice  that  the  expression :  "cleans- 
ing "  does  not  imply  previous  defilement.  For  the  tabernacle, 
and  especially  the  holy  place  within  the  vail,''  was  not  cleansed 
as  a  thing  that  had  been  defiled,  though  the  people  were  cleansed 

'  Comp.  John  iii.  12.  *  xii.  22.  '  Rev.  xxi.  10. 

*  De  Wette,  Lun.  *  Lev.  xvi.  16. 

21 


322  CHUIST    ENTERED    HEAVEN    ITSELF  [ix.  24. 

« 

in  that  sense.  The  place  where  God  would  meet  sinners  (or  the 
priests  that  appeared  for  sinners),  was  cleansed  by  sacrificial  blood, 
because  sinners  were  to  appear  there.  There  God  would  own 
them  as  His  people,  and  they  would  enjoy  His  presence  and  favor. 
The  place  that  was  to  become  the  sphere  of  this  relation  between 
God  and  His  people,  must  be  prepared  by  cleansing  that  would 
obviate  the  allowance  or  appearance  there  of  sin,  or  of  men  as 
sinners.  It  is  evident  that  this  notion  may  be  applied  to  the 
heavenly  things  themselves,  without  imputing  to  them  any  pre- 
vious defilement,  or  anything  that  made  them  less  purely  holy 
than  God  Himself.  It  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  in  itself 
inadmissible  to  suppose  :*  that "  the  supramundane  Holy  of  holies, 
the  eternal,  uncreated  heaven  of  God  Himself,  though  in  itself 
•untroubled  blessedness  and  light,  yet  needed  cleansing,  in  so  far 
as  its  light  of  love  had  been  lost  or  transmuted  for  mankind, 
through  the  presence  of  sin,  or  rather  had  been  over-clouded  and 
bedarkened  by  a  fire  of  Avrath."  Men  that  are  sinners  are  to 
approach  God,  and  Christ  as  High  Priest  enters  the  heavenly 
sanctuary  on  their  behalf.  The  place  of  that  meeting  must  be 
prepared,^  as  the  earthly  copy  was,  by  the  cleansing  of  sacrifice. 

Ver.  24.  For  not  into  a  holy  place  made  with  hands  did  Christ 
enter,  an  antit3rpe  of  the  true,  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear 
before  the  face  of  God  for  us. 

The  logical  relation  of  the  present  statement  to  the  foregoing 
verse,  expressed  by  For,  is,  that  it  shows  there  was  need  for  bet- 
ter sacrifices,  inasmuch  as  Christ  actually  entered  where  the 
heavenly  things  themselves  are,  to  do  the  priest's  work  for  us 
that  corresponded  to  what  was  done  in  the  earthly  Holies.  For 
such  functions,  offering  something  is  essential.^  He  did  not  enter 
a  holies  made  with  hands,  which  would  demand  no  better  sacri- 
fices ;  He  entered  heaven  itself  to  appear  before  the  face  of  God, 
which  did  demand  better. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  translate  S.yi.a  =  holiest  of  all,  nor  to  sup- 
pose the  Apostle  means  that,  while  using  the  word  properly  ren- 
dered Holies.*     According  to  the  Apostle's  own  definition,  ver. 

'  With  Del.,  and  Alford.  "^  John  xiv.  2. 

'  Comp.  viii.  3.  *  Comp.  on  vers.  2,  8,  12. 


ix.  24.]       TO  APPEAR  BEFORE  GOD  FOR  US.  323 

2,  it  means  the  Holies.  It  was  the  earthly  Holies  made  with 
hands  that,  while  it  had  valid  existence,  was  a  parable  represents 
ing  that  the  way  of  the  Holies,  i.  e.,  the  true  Holies,  was  not 
made  manifest.*  The  Apostle  calls  it  an  antitype  of  the  true 
Holies,  meaning  that  it  is  the  correlative  of  the  type  of  the  true, 
as  that  t}'pe  was  shown  to  Moses  in  the  mount.  That  correla- 
tive was  executed  in  materials  of  handiwork.  Into  that  anti- 
type Christ  did  not  enter.  Nor  does  the  Apostle  say  that  He 
entered  into  the  type  of  the  true  itself.  He  says  He  entered  into 
the  heaven  itself;  which  corroborates  our  view  at  viii.  5,  that  it 
M^as  not  the  very  heaven  itself,  nor  the  actual  heavenly  things 
that  Moses  saw,  but  only  a  representation  suitable  for  copying  in 
earthly  materials.  The  heaven  itself  is  where  God  is,  and  ince 
versa,  where  God  so  is  that  being  there  one  appears  before  the 
face  of  God,  that  is  heaverf  itself.  Entering  the  one,  Christ 
appeared  before  the  other.  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  for 
attaching  any  difference  in  meaning  to  t;j.(fa\'i<T>'>y^ai  and  offtrjfftrai 
(ver.  28.)^  Both  mean  :  appear,  with  no  pregnant  significance.^ 
But  to  appear  for  us,  expresses  a  vicarious  appearance,  and  thus 
priestly.  And  this  involves  appearing  with  sacrifice,  when  the 
appearing  is  before  God.  When  this  appearing  is  in  heaven 
itself,  i.  €.,  before  the  face  of  God,  it  is  necessary  that  the  sacri- 
fice be  corresponding,  i.  e.,  better  than  when  one  entered  the 
earthly  Holies.  The  Apostle  says  now  to  appear ;  not  in  antici- 
pation of  the  words  immediately  following :  "  nor  yet  that  he 
should  offer  himself  often,"  *  etc.;  and  not  with  reference  "  to  the 
new  dispensation  in  contrast  with  the  typical  and  shadowy  past ;'" 
but  in  anticipation  of  the  "  appearing  a  second  time  "  (ver  28), 
and  in  antithesis  to  that.®  As  6<f^(TtTai  intimates  nothing  about 
what  Christ  will  do  when  he  comes  again,  so  the  iii^aviaftT^vai 
here  expresses  nothing  as  to  what  Christ  does  having  gone  to 
heaven  ;^  not  even  that  he  continually  presents  himself  to  God 
for  us.* 

Thus  the  present  verse,  connected  with  the  foregoing  by  For, 

1  ver.  8  2Q)mp.  LXX.,  Ex.  xxiii.  17;  1  Sam.  i.  22. 

^  Comp.  von  Hof.  *  Against  Alford.  *  Against  Del. 

6  von  Hof.  '  von  Hof.  «  Against  Del.,  Alford. 


324  NOT  TO  OFFER  HIMSELF  OFTEN        [ix.  25. 

applies  the  general  statement,  that  for  the  heavenly  things  them- 
selves better  sacrifices  are  necessary,  by  declaring  that  Christ  has 
entered  there  with  a  purpose  that  demands  sacrifice ;  His  must 
therefore  be  the  better.  To  this  he  adds  another  statement  that 
further  illustrates  how  the  sacrifice  actually  is  better,  as  it  of 
necessity  must  be. 

Ver.  25.  Nor  yet  in  order  that  he  may  offer  himself  often,  as  the 
high  priest  enters  into  the  Holies  year  by  year  with  other  blood 
[than  his  own]. 

Here  it  is  affirmed,  that  Christ  did  not  enter  heaven  in  order 
that,  while  there,  as  he  is,  He  may  offer  himself  often  in  the 
fashion  indicated  in  the  comparison  with  the  high  priest.  For 
such  is  the  force  of  Trpoffcpipr^  in  the  present.  This  precludes  the 
notion  ^  that  the  Author  presents  the  idea  of  Christ  returning  to 
earth  often  that  He  may  often  offer  Himself  a  sacrifice,  or  often 
enter  heav^en  to  offer  Himself  in  the  presence  of  God.  This 
notion  is  further  precluded  by  the  distinction  noted  at  vii.  27, 
between  Tzpoatpipzv^,  which  is  used  here,  and  (vja(fip-.vj?  Did  the 
Apostle  mean  liere  an  often  offering  up  of  Himself  as  a  sacrifice, 
and  what  was  done  on  earth,  he  would  use  the  latter  word.  By 
using  the  former  he  expresses  what  is  done  when  the  sacrifice  has 
been  made,  viz.,  offering  Himself  to  God,  that  He  may  be 
accepted.*  As  the  high  priest  did  this  with  the  blood  when  he 
entered  the  Holies,  so  Christ  offered  Himself  when  He  entered 
heaven.  Thus  it  is  the  idea  of  something,  viz.,  offering  Himself, 
ojten  done  in  heaven,  where  Christ  is,  that  is  presented  by 
3roA/laz{9  <ppoa<piprj^  This  idea  is  presented  to  be  repudiated,  and 
thus  to  show  that  Christ  actually  deals  with  "  better  sacrifices  " 
than  were  used  for  the  copies  of  heavenly  things,  as  ver.  23 
affirmed,  was  necessary.  Let  it  be  noted,  too,  that  the  consistent 
meaning  we  ascertain  by  this  precision  in  interpretating  the  lan- 
guage used,  corroborates  the  explanation  under  ver.  23  of  what 
is  comprehended  by  the  expression  "  better  sacrifices."  We  see 
that  in  the  present  verse,  which  illustrates  them,  the  Apostle  has 
in  view,  not  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross,  but  what  is  done 

^  Of  de  Wette,  Liin.  *  Comp.  on  ver.  14. 

'  Comp.  von  Hof.  *  So  von.  Hof.,  Del.,  Alford. 


ix.  25.]     AS   THE   HIGH   PRIESTS   WITH   OTHER   BLOOD.  325 

in  consequence  of  it  where  he  has  appeared  in  the  presence  of 
God.     As  has  been  said,  this  is  a  phiral  notion. 

The  meaning  ascertained  by  tliis  precision  serves,  moreover,  to 
show  progress  of  thought  in  our  passage,  as  compared  with  the 
representation  of  vii.  27.  There  the  Apostle  contrasts  the  one 
act  of  Christ  in  sacrificing  Himself,  with  the  oft  repeated  act  of 
the  high  priests  as  it  occurred  year  by  year.  Here  the  contrast 
concerns  what  Christ  does,  having  made  the  sacrifices  and  entered 
heaven,  and  what  the  high  priest  does,  having  made  his  sacrifice 
and  entered  the  Holies.  The  latter  enters  the  Holies  with  blood 
of  another,  not  his  own.^  This  is  said  in  contrast  with  Christ, 
who  enters  heaven  by  His  own  blood  offering  himself.  And  here 
again  ^  it  is  needless  to  translate  t«  ayia  =  "  Holy  of  holies,"  or  to 
suppose  that  the  Author  means  the  Holy  of  holies,  when  using 
that  word  here.  The  high  priest  entered  the  Holies  with  the 
blood  before  he  entered  the  Holy  of  holies.  Part  of  what  he 
did  with  the  blood  was  done  there.  And  it  is  as  reasonable  to 
mention  the  entrance  into  the  Holies  as  including  the  thought  of 
what  He  did  in  the  Holy  of  holies,  as  to  mention  the  latter 
including  the  thought  of  what  He  did  in  the  former.  Moreover, 
the  account  Lev.  xvi.  15-19,  especially  ver.  17,  shows,  that  on  the 
day  of  atonement  the  whole  tent  was,  for  the  time,  regarded  as 
one,  and  so  partook  of  the  sanctity  of  the  holy  place  within  the 
vail. 

In  what  is  now  mentioned,  viz.,  the  frequent  offering  by  the 
Levitical  high  priest  of  blood  of  another,  in  contrast  with  Christ's 
oifering  Himself,  to  point  the  necessity  of  better  sacrifices  for  the 
heavenly  things  themselves,  the  Apostle  broaches  a  topic  that  he 
will  amplify  further  on.^ 

To  the  repudiated  notion  of  Christ's  offering  Himself  often, 
the  Apostle  adds  a  representation  that  is  meant  to  show  its 
impossibility  by  showing  its  absurdity.  This  appears  in  what 
would  be  a  necessary  condition  of  such  repeated  offering. 

'  The  fv-  in,  with  "  is  not  instrumentiil,  but  elemental ; "  he  enters  furnished 
with,  a.s  it  wore,  clad  witli  "  the  blood  of  another"  (Alford).  This  does  not 
diflcr  from  the  Aa  ai/iarog  ver.  12. 

^  Comp.  on  vers.  2,  8,  12,  34.  '  x.  1  sqq. 


326  SIN   ABROGATED   BY   ONE  SACRIFICE.  [ix.  26. 

Ver.  26  a.     Since  he  must  often  have  suffered  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world. 

The  hypothesis  of  Christ's  offering  Himself  often,  as  the  high 
priest  did  (which  could  only  be  done  each  time  by  a  fresh  sacri- 
fice and  that  of  beasts),  demands,  that,  to  this  present  period  of 
His  appearing  before  God  {wv  kiiipavt.G^\>ai  ver.  24),  during  which 
this  offering-often  must  take  place,  there  must  be  a  foregoing 
period  when  He  had  often  suffered  death.  To  correspond  ade- 
quately, that  foregoing  period  must  have  extended  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world  to  when  Christ  entered  heaven  to  offer 
Himself  before  God.^  This  obvious  meaning  of  the  present  state- 
ment shows  that  it  has  no  reference  to  Christ's  sacrifice  being 
valid  for  men  in  the  past ;  as  though  the  Apostle  dealt  with  the 
notion  that,  for  such  validity,  Christ  must  have  suffered  in  each 
generation  of  the  past  in  order  to  save  men  of  each  generation.'^ 
The  Apostle  simply  clinches  the  statement  of  ver.  25,  by  another, 
that  shows  the  impossibility  of  the  contrary  of  that  statement. 
He  follows  this  by  a  comprehensive  statement  that  affirms  the 
precise  truth  concerning  Christ's  death. 

Ver.  26  h.     But  now  once  at  the  consummation  of  the  ages  hath 
he  been  manifested  for  abrogation  of  sin  by  his  sacrifice. 

The  vt.v£'=  now  is  logical,  not  temporal,  and  means,  "as  things 
are  in  fact."  At  the  consummation  of  the  ages  resumes  the  notion 
expressed  by  :  from  the  foundation  of  the  world ;  but  does  so  in 
terms  that  intimate,  as  at  i.  2,  but  more  clearly,  that  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ  concludes  a  period,  and  begins  another  to  which 
the  former  tended,  and  for  which  the  world  waited.  The  Son  is 
an  epoch-making  agent  of  God  (i.  2).  It  is  the  period  of  the 
manifestation  of  Christ.  -Keipa'ApajTm  =  has  been  manifested,  refers 
to  Christ's  appearance  in  the  history  of  the  world  ;  and  the  per- 
fect expresses  it  as  something  that  remains.  Taken  with  the 
representation  of  ver.  28,  it  characterizes  the  period  till  Christ's 
second  coming  as  one  manifestation  of  Himself.  Taken  with  the 
azaf=:  once,  this  idea  is  expressed  with  complete  precision.  The 
purpose  (si?)  of  the  manifestation  is  expressed  to  be  :  for  the  abro- 

»  So  von  Hof.,  Alford. 
*  Against  Davidson. 


ix.  26.]  RESUME  OF  IX.  13-28.  327 

gation  of  sin  by  Ms  sacrifice.  His  sacrifice '  has  an  emphasis. 
But  not  as  meaning  :  "sacrifice  of  himself,"  as  though  we  should 
read  aoroo.  It  is  an  emphasis  marking  an  antithesis  between  the 
repeated  sacrifices  referred  to  ver.  25  and  what  Christ  did.  The 
period  of  His  manifestation  is  opposed  to  the  whole  foregoing 
period,  and  His  sacrifice  to  all  that  went  before.  The  effect  of 
His  sacrifice  is  that  it  abrogates  sin. 

And  here  we  observe  that  the  Apostle  s  argument  forges 
another  step  in  advance.  At  vers.  13,  14  he  represented  the  effi- 
cacy of  Christ's  blood  to  be  a  deliverance  final  and  everlasting, 
that  cleansed  the  consciences  of  his  readers  from  dead  works,  i.  g., 
from  submission  to  the  imposed  ordinances  of  the  flesh  (ver.  10). 
Here  he  gives  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  sacrifice  its  fullest  expres- 
sion. It  abrogates  sin  itself.  In  this  progress  of  thought  we 
note  the  recurrence  of  the  method  the  Author  uses  at  vii.  11-19, 
Here,  as  there,  he  uses  gentleness,  and  produces  his  extreme  and 
comprehensive  statement  by  degrees,  which  here,  as  there  (vii. 
18),  is  expressed  by  a<'}irrj<n<;,  a  word  used  no  where  else  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  present  statement  sets  forth  the  full  effect 
of  Christ's  work.  Taken  with  the  first  clause  of  our  verse,  it 
expresses  that  the  suffering  of  Christ,  by  which  is  meant  His 
death,  is  a  sacrifice :  that  it  is  His  sacrifice  ;  that  its  efficacy  in 
relation  to  Him  is  commensurate  with  His  manifestation.  That 
manifestation  is  once  till  He  comes  again ;  the  sacrifice  is  one,  and 
for  all  that  period  ;  which  gives  again  the  notion  already  expressed 
as:  "once  for  all"  (ver.  12).  If  the  limited  effect  of  Christ's 
blood  that  we  found  to  be  expressed  at  vers,  12,  14  seems  to  any 
a  pitiful  comprehension  of  the  sense,  here  at  length  we  have  the 
whole  grand  truth.  We  think  it  looses  nothing  by  the  gentle 
approach  to  it.  Esj^ecially  if  we  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of 
readers  who  were  being  led  on  "  to  full  growth,"  ^  and  needed  to 
be  letl  by  degrees. 

The  Apostle  has  not  finished  with  the  truth  of  the  present 
statement  by  the  mention  in  this  verse.  We  observe  that  what 
follows  X.  1-18  is  amplification  of  it,  and  that,  in  fact,  according 
to  what  we  have  observed  to  be  his  style,  he  has  broached  an 

'  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Liin.,  Alford.  '^  vi.  1. 


328  RESUME  OF  IX.  13-28.  ^  [ix.  26. 

additional  topic.  For  this  reason,  owing  to  its  relation  to  what 
follows,  as  well  as  its  relation  to  what  immediately  precedes,  our 
ver.  26  6  should  be  made  a  sentence  by  itself.  The  progress  of 
thought  is  difficult  to  detect,  as  any  one  must  feel  who  attempts 
to  define  the  logical  relation  denoted  by  ydp  —  for,  x.  1.  The  pro- 
gress of  that  appears  to  be  as  follows : 

At  ver.  15  the  Author  presents  a  topic  that  he  has  amplified  to 
the  present.  Its  chief  subject  is  the  dying  of  Christ  as  his  quali- 
fication for  being  mediator  of  a  new  covenant.  This  is  repre- 
sented in  respect  to  two  things :  (a)  his  death  for  redemption  of 
transgressions  under  the  first  covenant-;  and  (6)  his,  death  that 
those  called  may  receive  the  promise  of  the  everlasting  inherit- 
ance. To  the  present  he  has  dealt  with  (a),  viz.,  what  relates  to 
the  covenant  itself,  showing  that  death  is  necessary  to  its  validity 
(vers.  16,  17) ;  that  corresponding  to  what  was  true  of  the  first 
covenant,  so  shedding  blood  was  needed  for  the  second  (vers.  18- 
23);  adding,  or  rather  weaving  into  the  latter,  what  shows  that  Christ 
dealt  with  better  sacrifices,  as  His  covenant  and  the  things  concerned 
were  better  than  the  first  and  its  things  (vers.  24-26).  In  all  this 
he  deals  with  the  new  covenant  and  its  belongings  or  matenalia, 
which  he  calls  "  the  heavenly  things  themselves."  From  this  he 
proceeds,  ver.  27  to  show  (b),  what  relation  Christ's  death  has  to 
the  persons  that,  are  benefitted  by  the  new  covenant,  whom  He 
has  designated  as  "  those  called,"  and  how  it  secures  to  them  the 
"  promise  of  the  everlasting  inheritance."  This  he  does  with  a 
xai=  and,  conjoining  a  statement  concerning  dying  that  comes  in 
with  a  tone  as  if  it  resumed  a  topic  after  having  cleared  away 
misapprehensions  about  it.  What  we  now  read,  may  be  read  in 
close  conjunction  with  ver.  15,  if  from  that  verse  we  leave  out : 
"  for  redemption  of  the  transgressions  under  the  first  covenant. 

It  corroborates  this  view  of  the  progress  of  thought  in  our 
context,  to  compare  vii.  11-25,'  where  we  noticed  that  the  super- 
iority of  the  Melchizedek  priest  to  the  Levitical  priests  is  first 
set  forth  negatively  (vii.  11-19),  and  then  positively  (vii.  20-25). 
And  there,  too,  we  observed,  in  ver.  19,  a  statement  that  relates 
both  to  what  goes  before  and  to  what  follows.     Moreover,  we 

*  See  after  vii.  19. 


ix.  27,  28.]  MEN   DIE   AND   THEN   JUDGMENT.  329 

notice  now,  that  the  additional  (positive)  matter  is  conjoined  there, 
as  the  transition  is  made  here,  by  a  xa\  v.ab"  oaov. 

Having  shown,  then,  the  need  of  Christ's  death  in  respect  to 
His  being  mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  and  that  He  needed  not 
to  suifer  often,  the  Apostle  has  declared  that  "  Christ  appeared 
once  for  abolishing  sin  by  His  sacrifice."  By  this  comprehen- 
sive statement  he  both  concludes  the  foregoing  argument  concern- 
ing the  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  respect  to  the  covenant  and  its 
belongings,  declaring  that  He  died  once  (which  as  stated  =  "  once 
for  all ")  and  he  presents  the  topic  of  Christ's  dying  with  respect 
to  sins  themselves.  In  other  words,  he  comes  back  to  the  o-w^ 
^avdrou  ysvofiivou  =  "  SO  that  a  death  having  taken  place,"  ver.  15, 
with  the  ground  cleared  in  respect  to  "  deliverance  from  trans- 
gressions under  the  first  covenant,"  and  is  ready  to  interpret  the 
effect  of  that  death  with  reference  to  "  them  that  are  called," 
viz.,  that  thereby  they  "receive  the  promise  of  the  everlasting 
inheritance."     This  is  effected  by  the  "abrogation  of  sins." 

Returning,  thus,  to  the  ihr^drou  yv^oii.,  he  restates  the  topic  in 
terms  that  resume  the  ground  gained,  and  that  also  introduce 
another  argument  showing  that  Christ  must  die,  and  that  His 
dying  must  be  once.  Thus  far  the  logical  connection  pointed 
by  Chrysostom  is  just,  though  too  limited,  when  he  comments : 
"  Having  shown  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  Him  to  die  often, 
he  now  shows  that  it  was  necessary  for  Him  to  die  once." 

Ver.  27.  And  inasmuch  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die, 
and  after  that  judgment,  28.  So  also  Christ,  having  been  once  offered 
to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  appear  a  second  time  without  sin  to 
them  that  wait  for  him,  for  salvation. 

The  chief  thought  of  this  rc])resentation  must  be  found  in  the 
parallel  that  is  expressed.  Both  likeness  and  difference  appear  in 
the  parallel.  The  likeness  is  first.  It  is  appointed  unto  men  to 
die  once,  and  then,  as  the  next  historical  event  for  them,  follows 
judgment.  Time,  and  thus  histor\-,  wliich  involves  change,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  what  comes  between.  The  judgment  will  be 
according  to  the  life  as  it  was  when  death  cut  it  short.  Brief  as 
the  .statement  is,  it  most  completely  excludes  every  idea  of  any- 
thing occurring  between  death  and  judgment  that  can  change  or 


330  CHRIST   DIED   ONCE   FOB   SIX,  [k.  27,  28. 

modify  the  destiny  of  men,  as  determined  by  what  they  were 
previous  to  death.  Neither  anything  that  they  shall  be  or  do 
between  death  and  judgment  affects  their  case  ;  nor  will  anything 
be  done  for  them  by  another,  i.  e.,  Christ.  The  latter  notion  is 
effectually  excluded  by  what  is  said  of  Christ  in  the  present  par- 
alleL  The  present  Ls  a  convincing  proof  text  against  all  doctrines 
and  dreams  of  Restorationists.  It  is  the  more  couNincing,  in 
that  the  truth  in  these  respects  is  here  expressed  incidentally  and 
not  directly.  The  likeness  in  the  case  of  Christ,  is  that  He  once 
died,  here  expressed  by  :  was  offered  to  bear  sins ;  and  then  for 
Him  the  next  historical  event  will  be  His  reappearing  for  salva- 
tion. The  difference  is  that  necessary  one  between  men  who  are 
sinners,  and  the  suiless  Redeemer.  Tliis  makes  the  difference, 
that  for  the  former  is  reserved  death  and  then  judgment  'Aruz-i- 
rai  =  '•'  laid  by,  reserved,"  and  thus=  "  appointed,"  and  thus  the 
certain  prospect.  Judgment  is  meant  here  in  an  imfavorable 
sense,^  owing  to  its  mention  in  a  connection  that  speaks  of  sins 
and  salvation,  in  the  Redeemer  the  difference  appears  in  that 
death  is  in  His  case,  not  something  reserved  or  laid  up  for  Him 
as  His  due,  but  is  an  offering  of  him  for  sins ;  and  the  next  event 
in  history  for  Him  is  that  He  will  appear  for  salvation  of  many, 
which  salvation  has  its  relation  to  the  judgment  mentioned,  in 
that  Christ  will  then  accomplish  for  those  saved  their  eternal 
inheritance,  which  they  now  have  in  promise. 

In  r^ard  to  :  having  been  offered  to  bear  sins,  we  may  pause 
to  notice  the  consistency  of  the  use  of  -o'Xjcioi'.,  here  in  the  pas- 
sive ^vith  what  was  noted  under  vii.  27,  and  ver.  25.^  This  we 
will  do  in  the  words  of  von  Hofinann,  to  whom  we  owed  the 
obser\'ation.  The  quotation  will  give  also  the  explanation  of 
dvac'cO£:>  as  used  here. 

"  Two  words  are  chosen  here  intentionally  that  are  only  dis- 
tinguished by  their  prepositions.  B<jth  words  are  used  of  sacri- 
fice.     But  d>ac'cO£:>  d;iap-:iai  is  SOmetlling  different  from  a„acipt'.-^ 

»5u<7£ac,  and  without  doubt  the  Apostle  has  in  mind  Isa.  liii.  12, 

where   J^?*^  D"3"'.-*<pn    is   translated   by   aij.ap-iaq  tzoXXw^   a>rj\>s-pcz. 

Neither  there  nor  in  general  does  ayacipt-.-^  mean  to  '  bear  away,' 

'  Against  Alford,  DeL,  etc  '  Against  Alford. 


ix.  27,  28.]   Ills  SECOis^D  coming  for  salvation.  331 

or  *  get  rid  of;'  nor  does  it  hcre;^  but  in  both  places  it  is 
related  to  <fii)sv^  not  differently  from  what  u-^u,'ia(Trd^zr^  is  related 
to  fiuard^sf^.  AVitli  the  notion  of  bearing  is  conjoined  the  repre- 
sentation that  the  one  bearing  has  what  He  bears  above,  on  Him- 
self. To  bear  the  sin  of  another,^  however,  means  to  suifer  as 
evil  what  he  has  sinned  instead  of  the  evil  in  which  it  is  pun- 
ished falling  ou  himself.  In  this  sense  was  Christ  to  bear  the 
sins  of  many,  thus  to  atone  for  them.^  In  Trpoa^ipstv,  on  the 
other  hand,  <pipsiv  is  a  bringing,  as  it  is  in  wm<fif)zi,>y  when  it  is 
used  of  sacrifice.  The  same,  of  whom  a  -poaipipsi^  Iuutuv  has  just 
been  expressed,  is  now  said  r^poaeve'^f^sl^}  It  has  been  supposed 
that  the  interchange  of  napidcuxsv  iaurov  and  TrapsdoSrj  may  not  be 
compared  with  this,  because  it  is  God  to  whom  he  is  offered.^ 
But  when  we  read  Rom.  viii.  32  :  rou  idtou  ulou  oux  i<pe{(Tazo^  d)J.a 

unkp  Tjiiiuv  TzdvTujv  zapidiuxsv  aijTov^  SO  izapidioxzv  IS  meant  jUSt  as, 
Eph.  V.  2,  it  is  said  of  Christ  -apiSwxev  iaurdv  UTzkp  Tjiioiv  Tzposipopav 
xai  f^oaiav  ;  the  expression  is  borrowed  from  Abraham's  sacrifice 
of  his  son.  Thus  there  is  no  need  of  thinking^  of  Christ  being 
a  victim  of  the  violence  of  men  and  devils,  instead  of,  as  correla- 
tive of  the  d-ofia'^sTv,  what  befell  Him  for  God's  sake  ;^  and 
moreover,  the  aim  expressed  after  -potrevs^fysi^  forbids  it.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  statement  of  the  aim  does  not  constrain  us  to 
understand  zpixrtplpsiv  of  the  sending  of  Christ  into  the  world.^ 
As  at  xi,  17,  it  is  said  of  Abraham  -potr^'jrjvo^v^  rov  '/<tm«'z,  so  here 
by  -potTv^^y/^si'i  is  named  that  which  befell  Christ  to  the  effect  that 
He  had  to  bear  the  sins  of  many.  He  was  brought  there  where 
He  should  become  His  who  had  ordained  Him  to  be  an  atoning 
sacrifice  for  sins.  The  beginning  of  His  T:po<;<pip£<Tf'>ai,  however, 
preceded  His  d'Mi<fipzi\>  diiapria<;.  When  God  surrendered  Him 
to  the  suffering  that  brought  Him  through  death  to  God,  our 
sins  came  to  rest  ou  Him  in  the  form  of  the  suffering  wherewith 
He  atoned  for  them.  In  antithesis  to  this,  it  is  said  of  His  com- 
ing again,  that  He  will  then  appear  without  sin.  Obviously, 
this  cannot  mean  :  '  without  finding;  sin  in  existence."     Belony;- 

'  Against  Liin.  *  Comp.  Num.  xiv.  3.3.  *  Comp.  Del. 

*  Comp.  1  Cor.  v.  7.  *  So,  e.  g.,  Del.,  Maier,  [Alford].      «  As  Del. 

^  As  Del.  *  Against  Kurtz.  '  Bleek. 


332  EXTENT   OF    CHEIST's    ATONEMENT.        [ix.  27,  28. 

ing  to  off^yjfftrai,  it  can  only  declare  some  thing  of  Himself. 
Neither  can  it  mean  that  no  sin  shall  dwell  in  Him,  since  the 
antithesis  is  not  that  the  first  time  He  was  sinful,  but  that  He 
had  to  bear  the  sins  of  others.  In  this  antithesis,  and  in  this 
only,  and  not  when  avafifist'^  is  rendered  '  to  take  away,'  is  with- 
out sin  denial  of  such  a  burdening  with  sin  as  there  took  place 
where  He  atoned  for  guilt  that  others  had  contracted.  With  the 
once,  when  He  was  offered  for  this  purpose,  it  was  done.  When 
He  appears  again,  it  will  be  to  help  out  of  all  evil  those  that,  in 
believing  hope,  expect  Him." 

When  the  Apostle  says  Christ  was  offered  for  the  sins  of  many, 
we  are  not  permitted  to  understand  Him  to  mean  many  in  con- 
trast with  a  few,^  nor  that  many  is  said  for  all,  and  as  antithesis 
to  one.^  We  have  not  the  notion  presented  of  Christ  dying  as 
one  for  many,  but  of  Christ  dying  once  for  many.  In  an  anti- 
thetical parallel  that,  on  the  one  hand,  represents  men  universally 
as  having  death  in  prospect  and,  on  the  other,  Christ  atoning  for 
the  sins  of  many,  the  nearest  inference  is  that  it  is  not  intended 
to  say  that  He  atoned  for  all.^  Such  is  the  interpretation  of 
Chrysostom.*  It  corroborates  this  view,  that  the  Apostle  imme- 
diately adds,  that  when  Christ  will  appear  for  salvation,  it  will 
be  to  those  expecting  him.  It  were  as  reasonable  to  say  that  this 
latter  expression  "  is  the  qualitative  designation  of  7:«vrwv "  ^  as  to 
say  that  -oXlwv  is.  In  entire  consistency  with  Himself,  when 
He  says:  "in  bringing  many  sons  to  glory;®  God  made  Christ 
perfect  through  suffering,  and  He  became  the  author  of  salvation 
to  them  that  obey  Him  /  he  says  here  :  Christ  was  offered  to 
bear  the  sins  of  many,  and  will,  when  He  comes  again,  save  those 
expecting  Him.  In  so  expressing  himself,  it  is  evident  that  the 
Apostle  contemplates  the  atonement  of  Christ  as  meant  for  those 
who  actually,  and  as  the  event  will  show,  will  benefit  by  it.  And 
this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  what  we  have  observed  to  be 
his  way  of  contemplating  the  promise  of  salvation  and  obtaining 

'  As  Del.,  Alford.        ^  As  Calvin  who  compares  Eom.  v.  15 ;  Del.,  Alford. 

^  Comp.  ii.  10. 

*  See  in  Alford  the  same  view  quoted  as  of  Oec,  Thl.,  and  Thdrt. 

5  Alford.  «ii.  10.  ^v.  9. 


X.  1.]  THE   LAW   CANNOT   MAKE   PERFECT.  333 

it  by  faitli.^  We  that  believed  enter  iuto  the  promised  rest.^ 
But  whether  we  are  those  that  believed  unto  salvation,  or  are 
such  as  turn  back  to  perdition,^  shall  appear  by  our  persevering. 
As  the  Apostle  expresses  it :  "  We  are  companions  of  Christ  if 
we  hold  fast  the  beginning  of  our  confidence  firm  to  the  end."  * 

The  Apostle  proceeds  in  the  exposition  of  his  subject  in  a 
close  connection  of  thought,  to  which  the  division  of  chapters 
does  injustice.  Though  the  coherence  of  what  follows  with  what 
we  have  just  considered  is  plain  enough,  it  is  difficult  to  detect 
the  exact  logical  relation  denoted  by :  for,  ver.  1 .  But,  by  ref- 
erence to  the  progress  of  thought  in  ix.  15-28,  as  presented  above 
before  ver.  27,  it  appears  that  great  prominence  has  been  given 
to  the  truth  that  (ver.  14) :  ''  by  one  offering,  Christ  perfected 
forever;"  and  with  that  has  appeared  (ix.  25)  in  contrast  the 
frequent  oflPerings  of  the  Levitical  high  priest  on  the  yearly 
recurrence  of  the  day  of  atonement.  Without  affirming  it,  the 
truth  has  been  implied,  that  what  is  so  emphatically  declared  of 
Christ's  sacrifice,  is  not  true  of  those  legal  sacrifices.  With  this 
notion  the  For  of  ver  1,  seems  to  connect,  bringing  in  the  reason. 
First  the  fact  is  affirmed,  and  then,  as  von  Hofmann  says  we  may 
expect,  the  fact  is  explained  from  the  notion  of  the  law  and  its 
offerings. 

X.  1.  For  the  law  having  a  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come, 
not  the  very  image  of  the  things,  can  never,  year  by  year  with  the 
same  sacrifices  which  they  [viz.,  those  approaching]  offer  forever, 
perfect  those  approaching. 

Wc  adhere  in  this  translation  to  the  Received  text,  as  respects 
(Jnvazat  with  Tisch.,  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Al ford,  etc.  ;  against  W.  and 
H.,  and  the  Revision  of  1881. 

It  is  the  law  that  is  here  introduced  for  special  remark,  and, 
in  antithesis  to  it,  the  good  things  to  come.  It  should  \)e  noted 
and  borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  not  the  Levitical  high  ])riost,  and 
not  in  antithesis  to  the  Saviour.  By  the  good  things  to  come  the 
Apostle  means  the  same  as  at  ix.  11,  where  he  calls  Christ  the 
High  Priest  of  those  things.  Hero,  as  there,  they  are  designated 
as  future  with  reference  to  the  law,  and  not  to  the  Apostle  and 

'  See  above  after  vi.  8.  '  iv.  3.  '  x.  39.  *  iii.  14,  comp.  iii.  6. 


334  THE   LAW   A   SHADOW,  [x.  1 

his  readers.  What  is  directly  affirmed  of  the  law  is,  that  it 
cannot  make  perfect.  For  the  law  is  subject  in  this  sentence,  and 
dwarai  rshiwaai  is  predicate.  But  the  subject,  the  law,  is  quali- 
fied by  a  participial  appositional  clause  that  justifies  what  is 
predicated  of  it ;  and  with  the  predicate  is  joined  a  clause  defin- 
ing the  means  relating  to  what  is  predicated ;  and  the  predicate 
itself  is  qualified  in  a  certain  way  (year  by  year  .  .  .  never).  All 
these  demand  scrutiny ;  and  it  must  be  very  careful,  seeing  that, 
in  every  one  of  these  particulars,  expositors  have  differed  in 
interpretation. 

Bearing  in  mind  that  the  law  is  the  subject,  and  that  the 
antithesis  is  not  Christ,  but  the  good  things  to  come,  i.  e.,  that 
have  come,  of  which  Christ  has  been  declared  to  be  the  High 
Priest,  we  have  it  affirmed  that  the  law  has  a  shadow  of  the  lat- 
ter, and  the  precise  meaning  of  this  is  further  defined  by  the 
negative,  not  the  image.  The  metaphor  here  is  simply  that  of  an 
image,  {e.  g.,  a  statue,  which  is  the  reality  of  the  thing  itself,)  and 
the  shadow  it  casts  ;^  not  an  image  or  faithful  representation 
(c£x(oy)  and  a  sketch  or  outline  (n/.ui)  of  that.^  Thus  rwv  izfxxy- 
lidrco'j  —  of  the  things,  is  the  genitive  of  apposition  to  afjrijv  r.  eixwi-a, 
or  the  genitive  of  the  substance,^  and  thereby  are  meant  the  good 
things  to  come.  Remembering,  as  we  ascertained  at  ix.  11  sqq., 
that  the  good  things  to  come  are  what  Christ  obtaiued  and  the 
means  whereby  he  obtained  them,  our  present  verse  affirms,  that 
the  law  has  a  shadow  of  them.  This  means  that  there  is  like- 
ness, but  not  the  thing  itself.  Added  participially  to  the  subject, 
it  qualifies  the  latter  so  as  to  prepare  for  what  is  predicated  of  it, 
and  so  brings  in  a  proof,  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the  law,  of 
what  is  predicated.  And  this  is  one  reason  why  it  cannot  do 
what  is  desired  of  it.  A  second  reason  is,  "  that  the  law  must 
bring  about  that  Avhich  it  is  declared  it  is  unable  to  do,  xar 

hiaurv'^  ral^  aoTol^  j^txri'at?   al?   -pontfipotjavj ;    by   which,    howevCr, 

it  cannot  be  brought  about.     It  is  usual  to  connect  r.ar  bnaorw  t. 

i^uffiacg  as  if  it  said    r.  ao-alq  xar   b^iaorbv  I'^utriaiq,  and    to  refer  d<i 

TO  3irf^£xi<;  to  al'^  TrpofTfipouffiv.     The  latter  is  absolutely  impossi- 

^  So  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Alford,  etc.  *  Liin.,  etc. 

^  Ebrard,  Del.,  von  Hof. 


X.  1.]  NOT  THE   IMAGE   ITSELF.  335 

ble.^  For  eiv  ro  (JjiViz^s-  does  not  mean  'continuously '  or '  unceas- 
ingly '  or  '  ever  and  again/  ^  but,  as  the  expression  itself 
demands,  and  its  use  elsewhere  shows,^  forever.  When  used 
with  a  transitive  verb,  the  meaning  can  only  be,  that  the  action 
brings  the  object  into  a  state  in  which  it  thereafter  remains  for- 
ever. Connected,  then,  wath  7:<>i)(T<fi/)sr^  ffu(jia^,  it  would  say  that 
the  sacrifices  once  offered  never  again  cease  to  be  offered,  and  not, 
as  it  is  rendered  in  the  sense  of  dul  Travr^v,  that  they  are  ever  and 
again  offered.  It  is  objected,  that  al^  -ii<)(T(fip(tu(7v^  without  d<;  r. 
Stri^sxi^  is  without  meaning.  But  such  is  only  the  case  when  xar 
iviauru'^  is  joined  in  one  with  rats'  adrai^  ''/uffuhi  (in  a  fashion  sup- 
ported by  no  comparable  example),  and  thus  are  understood  sac- 
rifices that  are  every  year  the  same,  instead  of  letting  the  roi^ 
aijTal^  have  its  proper  connection  with  the  following  relative  pro- 
noun. By  this  it  is  left  unexplained  why  the  relative  clause  has 
a  plural  subject,  while  the  subject  of  the  principal  sentence  is 
0  i/«//«9.  If,  as  has  been  assumed,  the  high  priests  are  the  subject  of 
7:pn(T<pipoo(Tiv,  why  are  they  not  named.  It  is  the  more  necessary 
to  name  them,  seeing  that  the  principal  sentence  has  a  plural 
object  in  rohq  Tr/jo^Ti/jj^o/z^Koo?  that  one  might  suppose  is  the  sub- 
ject o^ -p<)<j(fi[)ou<nv.  It  is  said,  indeed,  that  this  would  be  con- 
trary to  the  terminology  of  the  epistle,  for  ol  T,po<npyii<i.vMn  are  the 
people,  whereas,  our  epistle,  without  exception,  uses  -poaifiptv^ 
of  the  priestly  offering.  But  the  objection  has  no  force.  It 
would  only  then  have  force  if  the  Apostle  used  a  different 
expression  for  the  sacrificing  of  the  members  of  the  congrega- 
tion. But  if  the  epistle  elsewhere  makes  mention  only  of  the 
sacrificing  of  the  priests,  so,  the  fact  that  it  called  that  -piKnfiptvj^ 
is  no  proof  that  thus  the  expression  is  limited  to  ])riestly  sacri- 
fice ;  an  expression  elsewhere  used  of  all  sacrifices  without  dis- 
tinction.* And  if  tlq  TO  dirjvexig  does  not  connect  with  «!«•  rr/xxr- 
(fipoufftv,  and  TaFf  t'/utrtaiii  does  connect  with  the  following  relative 

'  See  below  aprainst  this. 

*  Against  Rleek,  de  AVotto,  Ebrard,  Del.,  Kurtz,  etc. 
'Comp.  vii.  3;  x.  12,  14,  and  the  examples  in  Del. 

*Comp.  6.  ^7.  Matt.  v.  23;    viii.  4 ;   Mark  i.  44 ;  Luke  v.  14;    Acts  vii.  42; 
LXX.,  Lev.  i.  2;  ii.  1;  iv.  23. 


336  THE   SAME  SACRIFICES   YEARLY  [x.  1. 

pronoun,  then  -pixrfipouaiv  cannot  here  be  understood  of  priestly 
or  rather  high-priestly  sacrificing,  but  must  be  understood  to 
mean  the  sacrificing  of  the  TzpixTzir^oixv^ot,  of  those  drawing  nigh 
to  God,  of  those  coining  to  God.  The  Apostle,  then,  distinguishes 
what  the  law  does  and  what  the  individual  does.  The  law  goes 
in  action  when  it  ordains  sacrifices,  which  are  'ex  officio '  to  be 
brought  regularly  in  the  name  of  the  people ;  on  the  other  hand 
it  is  the  affair  of  the  individual  to  bring  sacrifices  when  the  need 
or  occasion  arises  so  to  do.  But  the  sacrifices  are  in  both 
instances  the  same,  sacrifices  of  beasts  ;  and  hence  the  law,  with 
its  sacrifices  which  come  every  year,  can  never  in  perpetuity 
make  perfect  those  that  go  to  God  in  prayer,  never  at  all,  in  per- 
petuity so  restore  them  that  nothing  shall  lack  to  them  for  their 
relation  to  God.  In  this  a  second  thing  is  named  that  makes  the 
law  impotent  to  make  perfect  forever  them  that  approach  God, 
viz.,  its  sacrifices  are  year  by  year  with  the  same  sacrifices  which 
they  (the  comers  themselves)  oflfer.  Not  because  they  are  always 
the  same  sacrifices  that  are  brought  year  by  year  on  the  day  of 
atonement  is  the  law  thus  impotent ;  but  because  what  it  does 
year  by  year,  it  does  with  the  same  offerings  that  the  people 
individually  bring  on  their  own  account.  Some  have  correctly 
joined  year  by  year  to  the  verb,  but  then  construed  the  thought 
thus  :  the  law  documents  every  year  its  impotence  ever  to  make 
perfect,  by  this,  viz.,  that,  notwithstanding  the  many  sacrifices 
brought  all  through  the  year,  it  always  brings  the  same  total  of 
atoning  sacrifices.^  But  this  construction  of  ra??  adrai^  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  many  sacrifices  brought  through  the  whole 
year ;  and  the  words  do  not  say  that  the  law  proves  its  impotence 
annually ;  but  that  by  what  it  does  annually  it  is  never  able  to 
do  for  those  approaching  what  they  need.  On  the  one  hand,  its 
nature,  and  on  the  other  the  nature  of  its  yearly  sacrifices,  viz., 
that  they  are  not  different  from  the  sacrifices  of  the  individual 
members  of  the  congregation,  make  its  incompetency  in  this 
respect.  That  is,  the  perfecting  which  the  law  should  effect,  must 
(if  the  yearly  atonement  could  do  that,  which  is  denied)  be  an 
abiding  effect,  which  would  only  be  renewed  annually.     But 

1  So  Ebrard,  Del. 


X.  2.]       THAT   WOESHIPPEBS   ARE   ALWAYS   OFFERING.  337 

nothing  of  the  kind  comes  about.  For  did  it  come  about,  then, 
because  the  general  atonement  of  the  law  effected  so  much,  the 
offering  of  those  sacrifices  which  the  annual  atoning  sacrifices 
resembled,  would  have  ceased,  because  those  serving  God,  once 
cleansed  in  conscience,  would  no  longer  have  consciences  accusing 
them  of  sin.  For  such,  if  we  have  correctly  understood  ver.  1, 
is  the  significance  of  the  interrogative  sentence  : 

Ver.  2.  Else  would  not  they  have  ceased  to  be  offered,  on 
account  of  the  worshippers  having  no  more  conscience  of  sins,  hav- 
ing- been  once  cleansed  ? 

"  The  AjDostle,  according  to  the  foregoing  construction,  can 
only  mean,  that  the  sacrificing  of  the  individual  members  of  the 
congregation  would  cease  to  be  offered.  And  only  this  might 
have  ceased,  not  the  high-priestly  sacrificing  of  the  annual  day  of 
atonement,  that  the  law  ordained ;  whose  continuance  or  ceasing 
did  not  depend  on  individuals.  Moreover,  as  the  persons  sacri- 
ficing are  designated  by  Xarpsuovra'i  (more  properly  renderd  those 
serving,  comp.  above  on  viii.  5 ;  and  ix.  9,  14),  we  must  under- 
stand the  sacrificing  to  be  that  of  the  individuals,  and  not  of  the 
high  priests.  The  objection  that  the  sin-offerings  of  individuals 
were  not  left  to  their  discretion,  but  were  demanded  by  law,^  is 
only  amazing.  Of  course,  whoever  was  conscious  of  being  guilty 
of  sin  should  bring  a  sin-offering ;  but  whether  he  would  bring 
it  rested  with  him.  And  if  his  consciousness  of  himself  and  of  his 
relation  to  God  was  no  consciousness  of  sin,  no  guilty  conscience,* 
he  could  not  be  in  a  case  either  to  be  willing  or  to  be  able  to 
bring  a  sin-offering.  On  the  contrary,  the  command  that 
ordained  the  day  of  atonement  and  its  sacrifice  remained  in  force. 
The  objection  that,  in  the  case  supposed,  the  law  would  have 
ordained  only  a  single  celebration  of  the  day,  and  not  the  annual 
repetition  of  it,'  avails  nothing,  seeing  that  what  is  spoken  of  is, 
not  *  de  legeferenda,^  but  '  de  lege  lataJ  Moreover  the  execution 
of  that  command  was  by  no  means  superfluous  ;  it  would  have 
ever  again  effected  the  atonement  of  the  congregation  and  cleans- 
ing of  the  consciences  of  the  members  of  the  congregation,  by 
virtue  of  which  there  would  have  been  no  need  of  sin-offerings 

'  So  Del.,  Kurtz.  *  Comp.  Kiehm,  p.  566.  '  So  Kurtz. 

22 


338  YEARLY   REMEMBRANCE   OF   SINS.  [x.  3. 

by  individuals.  Were  it  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle  that  the 
annual  atoning  sacrifices  of  the  high  priest  would  have  ceased 
had  they  been  able  to  cleanse  the  consciences  of  the  individuals 
from  sin ;  one  must  ask  :  how  does  he  mean  this  ?  For  the 
cleansing  would,  any  way,  only  avail  for  those  that  for  the  time 
being  constituted  the  congregation,  and  only  for  the  sins  so  far 
committed.  For  the  assertion  that  the  Apostle  assumes  that  the 
sacrifices  that  blot  out  sin-guilt  would  also  have  imparted  the 
power  henceforth  to  do  the  will  of  God,^  avails  nothing  against 
this  objection.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  no  other  effect  of  the 
annual  atoning  sacrifices  than  what  cleanses  the  conscience  from 
the  consciousness  of  sin-guilt.  Did  they  have  this  effect,  then  the 
individuals  would  have  had  no  more  need  to  bring  sin-offerings 
for  themselves.  For  any  further  sinning  on  their  part  would  be 
made  good  by  the  next  annual  atonement  of  the  congregation. 
On  the  contrary,  why  there  would  be  no  need  of  the  latter  is  not 
discernible.^  Moreover,  the  Apostle  does  not  say :  that  with  one 
high-priestly  atoning  sacrifice  the  law  is  impotent  to  make  perfect 
forever  the  members  of  the  congregation  ;  but  that  even  year  by 
year  it  can  never  do  this ;  thus  the  annual  observance  of  the  law 
ordaining  the  day  of  atonement  has  never  the  effect  on  the  indi- 
viduals, that  they  stand  forever  in  a  perfect  relation  to  God. 
"  To  this  answers  the  antithesis  : 

Ver.  3.  But  in  those  [sacrifices]  there  is  remembrance  made  of 
sins  year  by  year. 

"  But  it  is  by  no  means  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  one 
takes  this  as  the  antithesis  of  '  on  account  of  the  [ones]  serving 
having  no  more  conscience  of  sins,'  ^  or  of :  'is  never  able  to  per- 
fect forever  those  approaching.'  *  In  the  first  case  it  is  denied 
that  those  under  the  law  serving  God  have  no  more  a  conscious- 
ness of  guilt ;  and  to  this  the  affirmative  sentence,  that  by  those 
sacrifices  there  is  made  a  remembrance  of  sins,  does  not  corres- 
pond. For  it  does  not  say  how  it  actually  stands  with  those 
individuals ;  but  what  is  the  case  regarding  those  annual  sacri- 
ficial actions  of  which  ver.  1   has  said  what  the  law  is  impotent 

*  So  Eiehm.  '  Against  Del. 

'  So,  e.  g.  Bleek,  Liin.,  Del.,  Maier.  *  So,  e.  g.  Kurtz. 


X.  4.]         BLOOD  THAT  CLEANSES  NOT  SIN.  339 

to  accomplish  by  them.  Thus  aXXd  =  But,  stands  in  antithesis  to 
the  negative  sentence,  from  which  it  is  separated  by  the  inter- 
vening ver.  2 ;  and  to  the  '  year  by  year,'  with  which  the  predi- 
cate of  that  sentence  begins,  corresponds  the  likewise  accented : 
year  by  year  at  the  end  of  ver.  3.  Some  inaptly  render  h  mnatq 
avdiv^r^d'.i;  dimpTiU)-^ '.  'remembrance  of  sins  lies  in  them.'  ^  Joined 
with  a  substantive  denoting  action,  eV  nvt  designates  something 
in  and  by  which  such  action  takes  place.  The  remembrance  of 
sin  does  not  lie  in  the  sacrifices,  but  takes  place  in  and  by  them  ; 
in  that  they  are  brought  it  takes  place.  It  is,  furthermore, 
erroneous  to  say  ^  that :  by  those  refers  to  the  annual  sacrifice. 
For  then  year  by  year  would  be  redundant.  It  appears,  thus, 
that  by  the  expression :  *  with  the  same  sacrifices  which  they 
offer,'  was  not  meant  the  annual  atoning  sacrifices  as  such,  but 
the  sacrifices  as  they  are  the  same,  both  when  offered  on  the 
annual  day  of  atonement  by  the  high  priest  as  commanded,  and 
when  again  and  again  they  are  offered  by  the  individuals  by 
their  own  impulse.  What  happens  by  them  when  they  are 
offered  annually  is  remembrance  of  sins ;  there  is  remembrance 
made  that  sins  have  been  committed.  [The  Apostle  has  in  mind 
the  '  remembering  sins  no  more '  promised  in  Jeremiah,  as  quoted 
viii.  12,  as  appears  by  repeating  the  words  below  ver.  17. — Tr.] 
For  that  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  takes  away  sins  (takes  away 
thence,  where  they  lie  on  him  that  has  committed  them  ;  which  is 
not  atonement  of  them,^  but  is  releasing  from  guilt  and  conscious- 
ness of  guilt,  whereas  dfttpt'iv  diiapria^  said  of  God  denotes  for- 
giveness of  sins)''  is,  as  a  matter  of  course,  an  impossibility. 
Thus  the  Apostle  says  : 

Ver.  4.  For  it  is  impossible  for  the  blood  of  bulls  and  g-oats  to 
take  away  sin. 

"  And  thereby  he  shows  that  in  ver.  1,  a.s  the  connection  there 
by  For  with  the  foregoing  context  gave  reason  to  expect,  he 
designated  the  nature  of  the  annual  atoning  sacrifice  as  tliat 
which  made  it  impossible  for  the  law  to  bring  about  an  abiding 
perfection.  .  .  .  Thus  we  see  that  the  Apostle  emphasizes  the 

^  So,  e.  g.,  Bleek,  de  Wette,  Del.,  Kurtz.  '  As,  e.  jr.,  Rieliai,  p.  502. 

'  Against  Del.  *  As  LXX.,  Ex.  xxxiv.  7. 


340  Christ's  blood  makes  perfect.  [x.  4. 

nature  of  the  yearly  atoning  sacrifices  so  much  as  the  chief  thing, 
that  in  contrast  with  it  he  gives  effect  to  the  totally  different 
nature  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  by  virtue  of  which  it  has  brought 
about  that  which  the  other  was  not  able  to  do."  ^ 

The  foregoing  interpretation  of  our  verses,  1-4,  which  is  von 
Hofmann's  own,  we  have  given  at  length  in  his  own  words,  as 
he  expounds  it  and  defends  it  against  objectors,  because  this 
seems  due  to  him  ;  and  because  the  interpretation  is  given  in  a 
way  so  complete  and  satisfactory,  wherein  it  chiefly  differs  from 
the  common  view,  that  it  seems  impossible  to  improve  it  in  sub- 
stance. As  to  form,  we  fancy  the  reader  will  feel  that  it  might 
be  produced  in  expression  easier  to  read.  But  we  have  thought 
it  expedient  to  give  the  extract  literally.  We  are  constrained, 
however,  to  dissent  from  the  construction  that  joins  ££?.  t6  dtrjv£xi<i 
=: forever,  to  rsXscdxrat  --perfect.  Nor  is  it  essential  to  the  chief 
point  of  the  interpretation  just  given.  Reason  for  concurring 
in  the  common  construction,  which  translates :  which  they  offer 
forever,  are  the  following.  The  natural  position  of  this  qualify- 
ing adverbial  phrase  is  afler  the  verb.  The  Author  (who  alone 
uses  it  in  the  New  Testament),  uses  this  phrase  four  times  (vii. 
3 ;  X.  1,  12,  14) ;  and  in  the  two  instances  where  there  is  no 
possible  ambiguity  about  it  (vii.  3 ;  x.  14),  that  is  its  position. 
The  presumption,  then,  is,  that  in  all  four  instances  it  qualifies 
the  foregoing  verb.  It  will  appear  to  most  readers  simply  inex- 
plicable, or,  as  von  Hofmann  says  of  an  objection,  "  amazing  " 
how  he  can  say  this  construction  is  impossible  here,  or  that  it 
must  have  the  meaning  he  says  it  would  have.  Joined  to  a 
preterite  it  may  have  that  force,  as  we  think  it  does  at  ver.  12. 
But  joined  to  a  present  tense  that  sense  is  impossible.  Joined  to 
■Kpoff(pipoofftv,  it  only  farthers  the  chief  point  of  the  above  inter- 
pretation, by  characterizing  the  sacrifices  of  the  individuals  as 
something  they  go  on  offering  forever,  and  thus  emphasizes  the 
notion  brought  in  by  the  relative  ah ;  which  needs  something 
more  than  the  verb  itpoacpip,  to  give  it  prominence.  To  his  own 
constructi6n  it  is  a  weighty  objection,  that  never  forever  is  not 
only  harsh  and  inelegant,  but  if  not  a  redundancy,  then  it  im- 

^  von  Hof. 


X.  5-7.]  SACRIFICE  AND   OFFERING   THOU   WOULDST  NOT.     341 

plies,  that  what  is  not  done  forever,  is  done  for  a  period,  viz., 
year  by  year.  The  Apostle,  however,  means  that  the  law  does 
not  perfect  at  all  (vii.  19) ;  and  this  is  sufficiently  expressed  by 

Leaving  it  to  a  foot  note  ^  to  justify  our  interpretation  of  what 
follows,  we  observe  that  tlie  A2)ostle  proceeds,  in  a  dramatic  style 
like  that  used  at  ii.  12,  13,  to  represent  the  consequences  of  what 
he  has  stated,  vers.  1-4. 

Ver.  5.  Wherefore  coming  into  the  world  he  saith :  Sacrifice 
and  offering  thou  willedst  not,  but  a  body  didst  thou  prepare  for 
me ;  6.  In  whole  burnt  offerings  and  [sacrifices]  for  sinthau  hadst 
no  pleasure ;  7.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  come,  in  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is 
written  of  me,  to  do  thy  will,  0  God. 

^  Before  we  attempt  the  interpretation  of  the  following  vers.  5-10,  it  must 
be  determined  how  the  Apostle  uses  there  the  scriptural  language  Ps.  xl.  6-8. 
The  common  view  has  been  and  is,  that  the  words  of  the  Psalm,  as  far  as 
quoted,  are  a  "  word  of  prophecy,  predicting  the  coming  of  the  Son  into  the  world, 
and  expressing  his  mind  and  intention  in  his  incarnate  state."  (Davidson.) 
Accordingly,  it  is  supposed,  that  the  Apostle  appeals  to  those  words,  meaning 
thereby  to  show  that  even  the  Old  Testament  scriptures  reveals  the  inadequacy 
of  the  legal  sacrifices,  and  expresses  the  divine  dissatisfaction  with  them,  and  the 
divine  will  to  have  something  else.  Moreover,  as  the  Apostle  puts  these  words 
into  the  lips  of  Christ,  it  is  supposed  that  he  teaches,  that,  in  the  truest  sense, 
not  David,  but  Christ  was  the  original  speaker  of  them,  or,  as  Grotius  says: 
David  sensu  vulgari,  Chriatus  mystico.  This  view,  then,  obliges  the  interpreter 
of  our  passage  to  refer  to  the  original  Psalm  and  verify  the  truth  the  Apostle 
is  supposed  to  find  in  it  and  enforce  by  it.  Difficulties  are  encountered  at 
once.  The  citation  is  from  the  LXX.,  with  slight  variations.  These  variations 
are  but  a  little  difficulty,  which  may  be  explained  in  various  ways.  The  pres- 
ent citation,  in  that  respect,  has  importance  only  as  a  datum  in  the  general 
question :  whence  are  the  New  Testament  citations  of  the  Old  Testament 
drawn?  (Comp.  Ed.  Boehl.  Dk  Alttest  Citata  im  Neuen  Test.  Wien,  1878,  p. 
287  sqq.  Toy:  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament.  Introduction  ?  1,  I.) 
Then  there  is  the  difference  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  LXX.  texts, 
the  former  reading  :  "  mine  cars  hast  thoti  opened  [digged]  ;  "  the  latter  read- 
ing as  our  quotation  :  "  a  body  thou  didst  prepare  for  me."  This  presents  no 
small  difficulty,  and  its  consideration  involves  the  determination  of  tiie  relation 
of  the  LXX.  translation  to  the  Hebrew  original  (see  Toy,  (Quotations  in  the 
New  Testament,  p.  227),  and  of  the  (jncstion  whether  the  LXX.  is  a  final  ap- 
peal. The  proljlem  presented  by  this  difficulty  prompts  Delitzsch  (//(  loco, 
translation  of  Clark's  For.  Theol.  Library;  comp.,  also,  Alford)  to  write  as  fol- 
lows :  "  In  the  version  of  LXX.,  which  is  also  a  monument  of  Old  Testament 


342  SCEIPTURE   LANGUAGE   USED.  [x.  5-7. 

As  the  scriptural  language  here  used  is  no  quotation  for  proof 
or  corroboration,  we  are  not  called  on  to  comment  on  it  as  we 
must  if  the  case  were  different.  We  fail  to  see  any  meaning  or 
force  of  the  words  apart  from  the  impression  they  make  as  they 
read  here.  The  Apostle  borrows  language  found  Ps.  xl.  6-8, 
putting  it  into  the  lips  of  Christ ;  as  he  is  justified  in  doing,  in 

scripture,  and  as  such  regarded  with  reverence  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament — a  work  not  without  traces  of  the  influence  of  the  divine  spirit — 
this  prophetic  and  typical  character  of  the  passage  is  yet  more  evident."  The 
perusal  of  such  words  makes  one  wonder  how  this  way  of  exegesis  differs  from 
the  Eomish  way  of  regarding  the  Vulgate  as  inspired,  and  thus  as  the  final 
appeal  in  doctrine,  rendering  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek  superfluous. 
Then  a  comparison  of  the  Psalm  with  our  text  shows  that  the  thought  is  dif- 
ferent in  the  two.  Finally,  the  interpretation  of  the  Psalm  involves  the  ques- 
tion of  its  authorship  ;  and  whether  it  is  David's,  "or,  as  may  be  the  case,  by 
some  one  belonging  to  a  later  time  "  (Davidson),  becomes  important  (against 
Davidson ;  von  Hof.). 

All  these  observations,  as  they  present  difiiculties,  so  they  make  it  certain, 
that  there  must  be  much  disagreement  among  those  that  consider  them.  They 
are  all  involved  in  the  view  that  the  Apostle,  in  using  Old  Testament  language 
in  our  passage,  does  so  as  appealing  to  its  authority  in  support  of  what  he 
represents. 

Confronted  with  such  difiiculties,  we  may  very  well  ask  the  same  question 
that  was  considered  above  with  reference  to  i.  5  sqq.  and  ii.  12  sq. :  Does  the 
Apostle  here  quote  the  Old  Testament  for  proof  or  corroboration  of  what  he  represents  f 
We  are  not  aware  that  any  one  has  before  proposed  this  inquiry  here,  any 
more  than  at  the  other  passages  just  cited.  At  first  sight  this  seems  so  unfav- 
orable to  mooting  the  question  at  all,  that  to  do  so  can  only  be  presumption. 
Yet,  on  second  thought,  it  may  encourage  the  inquiry.  The  universal  assump- 
tion that  the  Apostle  quotes  the  Old  Testament  for  proof  may  itself  be  the 
presumption.  It  deserves  to  be  proved.  For  not  all  quotation  of  Old  Testa- 
ment scripture  in  the  New  is  for  the  purpose  of  proof.  The  Virgin's  song 
reproduces  the  language  of  Hannah's  song  with  no  such  purpose.  (Comp. 
also  Kom.  iii.  4  a ;  x.  6-8,  18 ;  xi.  34 ;  xv.  21 ;  1  Cor.  i.  20  [Isa.  xxxiii.  18]  ; 
ii.  16  ;  XV.  32,  etc.)  We  should  say,  that  in  every  instance  of  such  quotation, 
the  first  question  is :  with  what  intent  is  the  language  used  ?  In  most  instances 
the  purpose  is  so  obviously  an  appeal  for  proof,  that  one  does  not  think  of 
making  this  inquiry,  that  should  be  first.  This  fact  may  encourage  the  pre- 
sumption that  in  every  case  the  intent  is  the  same.  It  is  easy  to  pass  from 
presumption  to  assumption,  without  inquiry  or  reflection.  We  think  such  has 
been  the  process  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  quotations  in  our  epistle. 

When  we  put  the  question :  is  this  a  quotation  for  proof?  all  the  evidences 
before  us  are  against  the  notion,  and  nothing  is  left  to  encourage  it  but  the 
assumption  on  the  ground  that  that  is  the  common  use  of  such  quotations. 


X.  5-7.]  TO   CLOTHE  THE   APOSTLE's   THOUGHT.  343 

view  of  the  scripture  authority  quoted  viii.  8-12,  and  the  trutli 
that  Christ  is  ^Mediator  of  the  uew  coveuaut  as  there  promised. 
He  proceeds  by  8cu  -  wherefore,  which  sets  the  present  representa- 
tion as  a  consequence  of  the  immediately  foregoing  representation 
ver.  1-4.  That  representation  is,  that  the  law,  by  reason  of  its 
very  nature  (  [a]  because  a  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come, 

First  of  all,  and  of  most  importance,  is  the  noticeable  difference  in  the  manner 
of  this  quotation  and  that  which  follows  vers.  15-18.  The  latter  leaves  us  in 
no  doubt  as  to  the  intent  of  quoting.  By  saying:  "the  Holy  Spirit  testifies 
to  us,"  the  Apostle  expressly  intimates  that  he  appeals  to  the  scripture  in 
question  in  proof  of  what  he  represents.  Moreover,  what  he  concludes  from 
it  is  manifestly  a  just  and  obvitms  inference  from  the  language  in  its  original 
context.  It  therefore  corresponds  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  used.  That 
a  quotation  w  proof  is  reason  for  believing  it  is  used  for  proof.  But  this  reason 
fails  in  the  passage  before  us,  at  least  as  a  self-evident  thing,  as  does  also  the 
express  intimation  that  it  is  used  for  proof,  such  as  we  notice  in  vers.  15-18. 
We  observe,  then,  that  the  Author  knows  how  to  make  it  evident  that  he 
appeals  to  scripture  for  proof  when  he  does  so.  When  he  omits  to  do  so, 
we  may  suppose  he  uses  scripture  language  without  that  purpose.  We  have 
noticed  the  same  thing  above  (see  after  iii.  7),  in  a  comparison  of  the  scrip- 
ture language  used  at  ii.  12,  13,  with  that  quoted  iii.  7-11. 

Again  we  notice  that  the  language  before  us  is  introduced  (vers.  5-7)  in  the 
same  fashion  as  at  i.  5-13  and  ii.  12,  13.  But  there  is  here  the  striking  differ- 
ence, that  vers.  8-10  expound  the  language  put  into  the  lips  of  Christ.  This 
seems  to  afford  a  presumption  that  the  language  in  question  is  treated  as  jiroof 
of  the  thing  concluded,  (so  claimed  by  Riehm  p.  186) ;  and  we  would  be 
obliged  to  take  it  so  if  it  did  prove  this  conclusion.  But  we  observe  that  it  has 
the  force  expressed  in  the  inference  ver.  9,  only  as  it  is  put  into  the  mouth  of 
Christ,  and  not  in  the  least  as  it  is  found  in  Ps.  xl.  6-8.  In  the  Psalm  what 
is  meant  is,  that  God  wants  no  mere  sacrifices,  etc.,  of  the  speaker ;  our  quo- 
tation is  so  expressed,  vers.  5,  6,  and  interpreted  ver.  8  as  to  mean,  that  God 
wants  no  sacrifices  from  any  one  ;  he  wills  them  not  to  be  because  he  has  no 
pleiisure  in  them.  This  is  effected  by  the  Author  using  ovk  Tjv66K7]aa^  =  hadst 
no  pleasure  for  the  LXX.  ovk  ^T)?<Taf=  didst  not  ask  for.  This  cannot  be  called 
"a  substitution  without  a  change  of  sense"  (against  Del.),  seeing  it  gives  pre- 
cisely the  effect  that  is  made  jilainer  by  the  paraphrase  in  ver.  8,  where  ovk 
Tj-^fkijaaq  or(^  r/i'^uKTjang,  predicated  of  the  whole  list  of  sacrifices,  etc.,  expresses 
that  God  wills  they  shall  not  be  because  he  has  no  pleasure  in  them. 

The  Psalm  conveys  the  meaning:  "Since  ceremonies  of  the  law  are  worth- 
less when  divorced  from  habitual  obedience,  instead  of  offering  mere  sacrifice, 
I  offer  myself  to  do  whatever  is  prescribed  for  me  in  the  written  revelation  of 
thy  will."  (J.  A.  Alexander  on  Ps.  xl.  7,  comp.  Hengstenberg.)  The  lan- 
guage of  our  quotation  gives  the  meaning,  that  God  wills  that  sacrifices,  etc.,  as 
things  displeasing  to  hiiu,  shall  not  be  ;  and  the  speaker  says  so  as  pronouncing 


344  ENTER  THE  SON,   SAYING:  [x.  5-7. 

and  [6]  because  it  ordained  annual  sacrifices  that  were  only  the 
same  as  those  that  individuals  brought  as  often  as  they  sinned) 
could  never,  year  by  year,  make  those  serving  God  perfect. 
Wherefore,  he  adds,  Christ,  when  He  came,  came  with  the  intent 
and  effect  now  described.  There  is  no  need  of  searching  for  the 
subject  of  he  saith,  or  justifying  the  failure  to  name  the  subject. 
Other  Apostles  beside  John  ^  may  presume  to  be  understood  as 
meaning  Christ  when  what  is  said  is  obviously  of  Him.  Coming 
into  the  world  (etff£pxo/JLevo<i)  expresses,  in  the  most  general  way,^ 
the  notion  of  entering  into  the  sphere  of  worldly  existence.  This 
preface  gives  a  significance  to  what  follows  that  it  could  not  have 
without  it.  We  must  not  overlook  its  effect,  as  seems  to  be  com- 
mon with  expositors,  who  find  a  meaning  in  what  follows  that 

their  abrogation.  The  "will"  that  "he  comes  to  do,"  is  not  something 
in  the  sense,  that  obedience  is  better  than  sacrifice  (1  Sam.  xv.  22),  (against 
von  Hof.),  but  something  that  lakes  the  'place  of  sacrifices,  and  that  God  does 
will  and  with  which  he  is  pleased,  i.  e.,  a  better  sacrifice  than  that  of  beasts, 
hxit  a  sacrifice  still.  The  words  in  the  Psalm  therefore  do  not  in  the  least  justify 
the  inference  that  sacrifices,  etc.,  is  taken  away,  and  obedience  to  be  given 
instead.  But  the  words  of  our  quotation,  as  put  into  the  lips  of  Christ  by  the 
preface :  "  when  he  cometh  into  the  world,"  a  very  essential  part  of  the  repre- 
sentation, do  justify  the  inference  that  is  drawn  ver.  9,  6. 

If,  then,  as  a  quotation,  i.  e.,  in  the  sense  the  words  have  in  their  original 
context,  the  language  employed  is  no  proof  of  what  the  Author  makes  it  ex- 
press, we  are  not  justified  in  supposing  he  means  it  so,  in  the  absence  of  a  for- 
mal expression  on  his  part  to  that  effect,  such  as  he  uses  ver.  15.  And  this 
must  be  true  notwithstanding  the  interpretation  and  application  of  vers.  8-10 
that  afford  a  presumption  to  the  contrary. 

Von  Hofmann  says:  "Is  the  quoted  or  rather  adapted  scripture  passage  an 
expression  of  the  mental  disposition  witli  which  Christ  came  into  the  world," 
(comp  Del.),  though  he  has  labored  to  show  tliat  the  passage  in  the  Psalm 
itself  has  a  meaning  appropriate  to  the  use  the  Author  makes  of  it.  But  it  is 
manifest  that  we  must  go  further  and  understand,  as  at  i.  5-13 ;  ii.  12,  13,  that 
the  Apostle  uses  scripture  language  to  clothe  his  own  thought,  and  again  uses 
a  dramatic  way  to  represent  the  intent  and  effect  of  Christ's  coming  into  the 
world.  Assuming  that  the  Apostle  might  dramatically  introduce  Christ  as 
speaking  and  acting,  we  must  expect  him  to  put  scriptural  words  into  his  lips. 
For  the  present  purpose  there  was  much  to  choose  from,  (Liin.,  Alford  refer  to 
Ps.  1.  7-15 ;  li.  18  sq. ;  Isa.  i.  11 ;  Jer.  vi.  20 ;  vii.  21-23 ;  Hos.  vi.  6 ;  Amos  v. 
21  sqq. ;  Mic.  vi.  6-3.)  Yet  nothing  could  be  so  appropriate  as  the  language 
actually  used  for  this  purpose. 

^  Comp,  all  1  John,  especially  iii.  2.  ^  John  i.  9. 


X.  5-7.]  I    AM    COME   TO    DO    THY    WILL.  345 

they  could  find  as  well  without  this  preface,  and  even  better  if 
the  preface  read :  "  wherefore  speaking  in  David."  The  preface, 
as  it  is,  intentionally  characterizes  the  spirit  in  which  the  scrip- 
ture lanffuao-e  that  follows  is  used.  It  was  not  when  the  Psalm 
was  written  that  the  following  is  conceived  as  said.  Nor  is  it  as 
David  is  represented  saying  what  he  said  (viz.,  "  then  said  I," 
etc.)  in  some  period  of  his  life  under  a  special  experience.^  But 
Christ  is  represented  speaking  thus  as  He  comes  into  the  world. 
And  not  merely  what  David  declares  he  said,  does  Christ  say ; 
hut  He  says  all  the  language  quoted.  What  is  meant  is,  that  the 
language  quoted  expresses  God's  intent,  and  that,  by  coming  and 
saying  that  language,  Christ  gives  effect  to  the  intention.  In  the 
quoted  words  we  have  the  intention  expressed.  In :  sacrifices 
.  .  .  thou  wouldest  [willedst]  not,  i9i?.£r>  has  its  strongest  mean- 
ing:::" to  decree,"^  as  appears  from  the  following  to  >/iXrjiJ.d  aou 
(vers.  7,  9),  and  the  Iv  iu  I'^eXrj/j.aTt  (ver.  10).  Thus  the  meaning  is, 
that  God  wills  the  sacrifices  not  to  be.  To  represent  this  relation 
of  verb  and  substantive  we  have  translated :  "  willedst."  The 
words  of  vers.  5,  6,  put  into  the  lips  of  Christ  represent  Him  as 
expressing  the  will  of  God,  and,  thus  bringing  with  Him,  as  He 
comes  into  the  world,  the  sentence  that  abrogates  the  legal  sacrifices, 
etc.  In  antithesis  (Si)  he  says :  but  a  body  thou  didst  prepare 
for  me.  We  are  not  concerned  with  the  question  of  how  these 
words  may  be  a  translation  or  interpretation  of  the  original 
Hebrew  that  reads  so  differently.  Our  only  business  is  with 
them  as  they  appear  here.  If  this  is  thought  to  be  too  narrow  a 
view,  it  is,  any  way,  better  than  that  method  which  expends 
many  words  on  the  critical  question,  and  not  one  on  the  relation 
of  the  words  in  their  present  context.^  Did  these  words  serve 
no  purpose  in  the  context,*  we  may  assume  that  the  Apostle 
would  have  omitted  them,  as  he  omits  o  i'm6<;  ixou,  t^ISouXtj'^v,  and 
otherwise  changes  the  original  words.  As  for  the  view,  that 
"  this  argument  might  have  been  made  without  the  quotations, 

1  Corap.  von  Ilof.,  Schriftbew  II.,  i.  6,  18.^>3. 

*See  Grimm's  Lex.   sub  voc;  comp.  John  xvii.  24;  Horn.  rii.  19;  ix.  16; 
1  Ck)r.  xii.  18. 
'  As,  e.  g.,  Alford.  *  So  von  Ilof. 


346  SACEIFICES   THOU   WOULDST   NOT.  [x.  5-7. 

but  a  desirable  support  from  the  Old  Testament  seemed  to  the 
Author  to  be  presented  in  the  LXX.  phrase,  '  a  body  thou  hast 
prepared  me/  "  ^  it  can  only  occur  to  one  that  is  blind  to  the  integ- 
rity and  spirit  of  truthfulness  that  breathes  in  every  line  of  this 
epistle.  In  ver.  10,  when  he  makes  the  application,  the  Author 
shows  that  the  present  words  are  intentionally  used  with  the  rest 
that  he  puts  into  the  lips  of  Christ.  And  that  application  shows, 
as  does  the  antithetical  form  of  our  clause,  that  the  body  is  con- 
trasted with  the  sacrifices,  etc.,  and  saying  that  God  prepared  it 
{xary^priffio  middle=" prepared  for  thyself")^  expresses  that  it  is 
something  God  does  will,  and  thus  is  well  pleased  with  it,  and 
means  it  to  be  instead  of  the  other.  The  expression  of  this  in 
the  aorist  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  the  time  of  saying 
this,  and  thus  the  coming  into  the  world,  must  be  understood  of 
some  period  after  Christ's  entry  into  the  world,  say  of  His  enter- 
ing on  his  ministry.^  The  dramatic  manner  of  the  representa- 
tion warrants  no  such  analysis.  The  present  tenses  Xiyet.  and 
Xiyiuv,  vers.  5,  8,  dvatpu,  (TTrjffrj  ver.  9,  adjust  the  sense  of  the 
whole  representation. 

In  verse  6  the  Apostle  writes :  whole  bumt-offerings  and 
[sacrifices]  for  sin  thou  hadst  no  pleasure  in,  wherein  he  substi- 
tutes :  thou  hadst  no  pleasure  for  :  "thou  didst  not  ask  for"  which 
is  in  the  LXX.  Instead  of  supposing  his  MS.  read  as  he  quotes,* 
it  is  more  reasonable  to  think  he  chooses  his  word  on  purpose. 
He  thereby  expresses  something  stronger,  and  represents  sacrifices 
for  sin,  etc.,  as  displeasing  ^  to  God  ;  and  thus  expresses  the  rea- 
son why  God  wills  them  not  to  be. 

In  ver.  7,  in  the  same  intentional  way,  the  Apostle  changes 
the  language  of  the  original  so  as  to  connect  rou  r.ou^aai  with 
^zw,  thereby  expressing  that  Christ  said :  I  am  come  to  do  thy  will. 
What  that  will  is,  must  be  expressed  in  the  words  of  vers.  5,  6. 
For  :  in  the  roll  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me,  is  without  empha- 
sis here,  as  the  explanation  of  ver.  8,  9,  shows  by  omitting  to 
remark  on  it ;  and  if  it  has  any  meaning,  it  must  be,  not,  as  in 
the  Psalm,  that  the  will  to  be  done  is  written  there,  but  that  there 

^  Toy,  p.  227.  ^  See  Grimm's  Lex.,  suh  voc. ;  comp.  Matt.  xxi.  16. 

3  So  de  Wette,  Alford.  *  So  AKord.  ^  Comp.  ver.  38 ;  1  Cor.  x.  5. 


X.  5-7.]  A   BODY   THOU   DIDST   PREPARE.  347 

is  written  what  expresses  that  Christ  comes  to  do  God's  will. 
And  such,  we  suppose,  is  the  meaning.  As  the  present  words 
intimate,  that  those  of  vers.  5,  6,  express  the  will  of  God,  they 
require  us  to  interpret  the  latter  as  we  have  done,  viz.,  as  expres- 
sive, not  merely  of  a  sentiment  of  God  toward  sacrifices,  etc., 
and  regarding  the  body  he  prepared,  but  of  His  will,  viz.,  will- 
ing that  the  former  should  not  be  and  that  the  latter  should  be 
instead.  Coming  into  the  world  Christ  says :  such  was  God's 
will ;  and  that  He  said  He  is  come  to  do  it. 

In  respect  to  doctrine,  we  may  pause  to  remark,  that  while  the 
present  representation  admits  of  no  analysis  that  would  define 
when  these  things  were  said,  and  what  epoch  or  point  of  Christ's 
history  is  intended  by  the  expression :  coming  into  the  world, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  expression  involves  the  d(jctriue 
(a)  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  (b),  that  coming  into  the 
world.  He  did  so  with  the  clearest  intelligence  of  what  His  mis- 
sion was  to  be,  and  (c)  that  especially  it  was  His  mission,  which 
He  made  His  own  will,  to  offer  His  body  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and 
(d)  that  thereby  the  old  covenant  with  its  sacrifice  was  to  be 
replaced  by  the  new  covenant  with  its  one  sacrifice  of  Himself 
as  the  atonement  for  sins. 

The  Apostle  comments  on  the  representation  just  given,  inter- 
preting the  effect.  The  intention  has  been  expressed  in  the  quoted 
language :"  sacrifices  and  offering  .  .  .  to  do  thy  will,"  expressed 
in  the  aorist.  The  interpretation  expresses,  that  effect  was  given 
to  the  intention  or  will  by  Christ's  saying  it,  by  which  liyco'^  = 
saying  is  meant  the  whole  notion  "  coming  into  the  world  He 
says."     So  coming  and : 

Ver.  8.  Saying  above,  that'  sacrifices  and  oflFerings  and  whole 
burnt-offerings  and  [sacrifices]  for  sins  thou  wiUedst  not  neither 
hadst  pleasure  therein  (the  which  are  offered  according  to  the  law), 
9.  then  he  hath  said,  Lo,  I  am  come  to  do  thy  will,  the  effect  is  as 
expressed  in  the  fi)l lowing  clause  :  he  takes  away  the  first  that 
he  may  establish  the  second. 

In  reproducing  the  quoted  language,  the  Author  does  so  in  a 
more  convenient  form  for  his  purpose,  bringing  all   that  is  the 

'  bri  untranslated  in  versions  1611,  1881. 


348  THE   FORMER   TAKEN   AWAY.  [x.  8-9. 

name  for  sacrifices  and  offerings  together,  to  be  the  antithesis  of 
the  words  :  then  he  hath  said,  etc.  Moreover  he  says  :  sacrifices 
and  offerings,  in  the  plural,  and  not  in  the  singular  as  above.^ 

These  changes  that  are  made  forbid  our  assuming :  "  that  the 
writer  prefers,  instead  of  the  simpler  and  more  regular  ayuizzpov 

el-(li'>   .    .   .   L>(TT£pov  kij'et,   to   write    d'XOT.  Xiywv    .    .    .    Tore  elpr^xev, 

because  "  he  is  more  concerned  to  emphasize  the  internal  connec- 
tion of  the  utterances  than  their  temporal  sequence."  ^  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  Author  writes  exactly  as  he  intended,  and  that  he 
makes  the  changes  that  suit  his  precise  meaning.  He  makes 
another,  substituting  he  hath  said  {elpr^y.£:v),  for  the  I  said  (cT;rr>v) 
of  ver.  7.  But  this  is  merely  resumption  of  the  latter  in  the 
manner  that  is  proper  after  the  recitative  on.  -  that.  For  here, 
as  above,  vers.  5-7,  what  Christ  is  represented  as  saying  is  all  the 
scriptural  language  quoted,  and  the  recitative  on  extends  over  all. 
This  on  is  commonly  overlooked  and  its  force  missed  ;  as  mtness 
versions  1611,  1881.  In  reciting  what  Christ  says  concerning 
sacrifices,  etc.,  the  Apostle  adds  a  comment  which  points  the 
reference  of  what  is  now  represented  to  the  general  argument  of 
which  it  forms  a  part.  Which  are  offered  according  to  the  law. 
The  ai'r;i'£9=: which,  is  not  the  simple  relative  that  identifies  ;  but 
one  that  classifies ;  and  what  the  Apostle  calls  attention  to  is,  that 
the  sacrifices,  etc.,  so  spoken  of  are  the  very  things  in  question 
in  the  whole  context  from  ver.  1.  He  says,  in  effect,  ordained 
by  law  though  they  were,  such  was  God's  purpose  concerning 
them. 

The  Author  continues  the  recitation  of  the  words  Christ  has 
been  represented  as  saying  :  Then  he  has  said ;  and  these  words, 
for  reasons  given  above,  are  not  to  be  taken  as  the  Author's  and 
as  forming  the  antithesis  of:  saying  above.^  The  saying  of  both 
the  one  and  the  other  in  that  relation  which  has  been  called : 
coming  into  the  world  puts  the  case  that  the  Apostle  proceeds  to 
interpret.     "  Coming  into  the  world  and  saying  "  presents  one  in 

'  The  received  text  repeats  the  words  in  the  singular.  But  the  plurals  are 
generally  adopted  as  the  correct  text. 

*  Del.,  similarly  Liin.  ^  Against  Lun.,  Del. 


X.  10,]  THE   LATTER   ESTABLISHED    INSTEAD.  349 

the  posture  of  acting,  and  the  action  intended  is  denoted  by  what 
is  said.  It  gives  effect  to  the  intention  expressed  when  Christ 
comes  speaking  so.  What  that  effect  is  is  expressed  :  he  takes 
away  the  first  that  he  may  establish  the  second. 

Tliese  words  are  not  a  conchisiun,  nor  arc  they  a  parenthesis, 
leaving  ver.  10  with  h  w  f^kyjimTi  to  connect  closely  with  ro 
^ikr/fid  <jou}  It  is  the  proper  predicate  of  the  subject  '/.iymv  x.  r.  X. 
ver.  8  ;  and  what  is  expressed  is  predicated  of  that  subject,  i.  e., 
Christ  as  He  is  represented,  viz.,  as  one  coming  into  the  world 
saying  the  words  put  into  His  lips.  It  interprets  the  action.  The 
action  is  one  "  will,"  with  two  correlative  effects.  The  doing  of  one 
is  in  order  to  the  doing  of  the  other,  which  is  impossible  without 
it.  That  doing  God's  will,  here  expressed  as  :  thy  will,  does  not 
refer  only  to  taking  away  the  sacrifices,  etc.,  is  plain  from  the 
naming  of  the  second  that  is  established.  Yet,  that  the  taking 
away  sacrifies,  etc.,  is  in  part  doing  the  will  of  God  in  question 
is  obvious.  What,  then,  is  the  second  that  Christ  establishes. 
The  context  only  offers  :  "  a  body  thou  didst  prepare  (thyself) 
for  me  ;  "  expressed  in  antithesis  to  the  "  sacrifice,"  etc.  It  was 
that  which  Christ  established,  viz.,  in  the  sense  that  His  body 
was  made  the  sacrifice  instead  of  the  sacrifices,  etc.,  that  are  taken 
away.  As  a  sacrifice  it  is  established,  for  it  remains,  and  beside 
it  there  remains  no  other  (ver.  26).  That  such  is  the  meaning 
involved  in :  he  establishes  the  second,  is  made  plain  by  the 
Apostle  himself  in  ver.  10.  He  reverses  the  expression  of  it  in 
order  to  combine  it  witli  a  compreliensive  statement. 

Ver.  10.  By  which  will  we  have  been  sanctified  by  the  offer- 
ing of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  aU. 

We  have  seen  above  that  in  what  is  said  concerning  sacrifices, 
etc.,  and  concerning  what  Christ  would  do  as  tiic  will  of  God, 
the  latter  is  not  represented  as  the  will  of  God  in  a  way  distinct 
from  the  other  being  the  will  of  God  also.  And  what  has  been 
represented  is  not  that  Christ  instead  of  sacrifices,  etc.,  does  the 
will  of  God  ^  in  the  sense  that,  to  ol^y  is  better  than  sacrifice  (1 
Sam.  XV.  22).  The  abrogation  of  sacrifices  ("the  first")  and 
the    establisliing   of  Christ's   sacrifice    (ix     20)    instead    ("  the 

'  So  Liin.  '  Against  Ebi-ard,  von  Hof. 


350  SANCTIFIED   BY   THE   OFFERING  [x.  10. 

second  ")  was  one  will.  This  double  intention  expressed  in  the 
language  adopted  from  Ps.  xl.,  and  the  double  effect  accomplished 
by  Christ  in  coming  into  the  world  and  saying  the  language,  is 
the  will  referred  to  by  :  which  will.  The  expression,  therefore, 
has  nothing  to  do  either  exclusively  with  the  notion  that  it  was 
the  will  of  God  that  Christ  should  suffer  to  atone  for  the  world, 
or  with  the  notion  that  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  Christ  should 
obey  in  general  the  divine  commands  and  be  holy.^  Nor  are  we 
called  upon  to  mediate  these  notions,  and  show  that  the  latter  was 
the  condition  of  the  former.^  This  interpretation  comes  from 
assuming,  that,  in  using  the  words  of  Ps.  xl.,  the  Apostle 
intends  a  parallel  with  the  experience  and  expressions  of  David. 
By  the  will  of  God  the  sacrifices  according  to  the  law  were  taken 
away  by  Christ,  and  His  sacrifice  established  instead,  and  we 
have  been  sanctified  by  the  latter.  Let  it  be  noted  that  -Kpoffcpopd 
is  not  offering  as  an  act ;  but  the  thing  offered,  as  at  ver.  5,  and  thus 
ffw/jLaro?  is  genitive  of  apposition.^  The  text  says  :  once  for  all 
in  a  construction  that  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  it  expresses  that 
Christ's  body  was  offered  once  for  all,  or  whether  we  are  sancti- 
fied once  for  all.  The  order  of  thought,  however,  as  well  as  the 
position  of  ^^arra?,  makes  it  likely  that  the  thing  stated  is,  that 
Christ's  body  was  offered  once  for  all.*  For  the  point  is,  that 
God  wills  our  sanctification,  not  by  legal  sacrifices  which  are  abro- 
gated, but  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  body.  And  while  affirm- 
ing the  latter,  the  Apostle  adds,  that  this  offering  was  made  once 
for  all,  which  thought  he  restates  ver.  12  in  the  most  precise 
manner.  Moreover,  sanctification,  in  our  Author's  sense,  being  a 
setting  over  to  God  from  a  condition  that  is  not  that,  involves  the 
notion  of  something  done  forever,  and  thus  adding  to  it :  "  once 
for  all,"  would  be  redundant. 

We  have  been  sanctified  is  not  meant  to  express  a  benefit  actually 
experienced  in  the  persons  of  the  Apostle  and  his  readers,  but 
what  was  achieved  when  the  offering  of  Christ  was"  finished. 
When  the  priest  has  done  all  that  it  is  the  priest's  part  to  do, 
then  he  has  sanctified  those  concerned.     And  to  those  concerned, 

*  Against  Ebrard.  ^  Against  Alford.  '  So  von  Hof.,  against  Del. 

*  So  Alford ;  against  Del.,  Liin.,  von  Hof. 


X.  10.]  ONCE    FOR    ALL   OF   CHRIST's   BODY.  351 

whether  they  are  believers,  or  witli  a  view  to  making  them  believ- 
ers, it  may  be  said,  pointing  to  the  priest's  work  :  by  that  we 
have  been  sanctified.  The  Author's  discourse  is  concentrated  on 
the  representation  of  Christ's  work,  not  on  the  expression  of  the 
actual  experience  of  its  benefits.  Unless  this  is  kept  in  mind, 
there  must  be  misapprehension  of  much  that  is  here  taught.' 

The  Apostle  names  the  Redeemer  here  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
tliis,  we  may  suppose,  is  because  the  reference  to  His  body  oifered 
as  a  sacrifice  concerns  Christ  in  the  flesh,  i.  c,  in  His  earthly  life 
having  come  into  the  world,  in  which  condition  His  name  was 
Jesus.  It  is  to  be  noted,  that  in  what  the  Apostle  now  affirms, 
he  uses  the  first  person  plural.  It  is  something  that  concerns 
him  as  well  as  others.  At  ix.  14,  we  observed  that  he  used  the 
second  person  plural,  as  speaking  of  something  that  did  not 
concern  him. 

In  what  has  just  been  represented  vers.  1-10,  the  Apostle  has 
brought  in  the  mention  of  the  sacrifices  that  individuals  offered  : 
"the  same  sacrifices  which  they  bring,"  sciL,  they  who  approach 
God.  This  he  does  with  the  intent  to  show  the  impotency  of  the 
law  with  its  sacrifices,  and,  in  contrast,  the  potency  of  the  one 
sacrifice  of  Christ's  body  offered  by  the  will  of  God.  Thus  the 
effect  is  expressed  in  the  passive  "  we  have  been  sanctified,"  con- 
fining the  thought  to  the  efficiency  of  the  sacrifice.  But  the  notion 
of  sacrifice  is  incomplete  without  the  priest.  Tlie  effect  of  the 
sacrifice  is  not  in  itself,  but  is  the  doing  of  the  priest  that  offers 
it,  and,  in  fact,  the  priest  is  superior  to  the  sacrifice.  Accordingly, 
as  the  complement  of  the  foregoing  representation  vers.  1—10,  the 
Apostle  proceeds  to  speak  of  the  priests  concerned  in  the  offerings 
that  have  been  mentioned,  and,  in  contrast,  to  affirm  the  virtue 
of  Christ's  priestly  act.  The  point  is  expressed  ver.  14  :  "  by  one 
offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified,"  in 
which  is  said,  not  what  the  sacrifice  effects,  but  what  he,  the  priest, 
does  by  his  sacrifice.  Such  we  understand  to  be  the  progress  of 
thought;  and  therein  we  find  the  justification  of  the  U/ieu^^of  the 
Text  Recept.  against  tlie  dpxc^fei'xi  preferred  by  some.  This 
thought  is  appropriately  conjoined  by    And. 

^  Comp.  below  on  ver.  29. 


352  .  DAY    BY    DAY   THE   SAME   SACEIFICES  [x.  11 

Ver.  11.  And  every  priest,  indeed,  standeth  day  by  day  minis- 
tering and  oJBfering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices,  the  which  can 
never  divest  of  sins. 

We  retain  hpsu?  =  priest,  according  to  the  Received  text,  with 
Treg.,  Tisch.  viii.,  W.  and  H.,  ^Ispsuf^,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Ebrard, 
etc. ;  against  Bleek,  Liin.,  Alford,  Lach. 

It  is  of  priests,  and  not  of  high  priests,  that  the  Apostle  speaks 
here,  in  order  to  present  the  contrast  with  Christ  as  Priest.  As 
at  V.  1 — viii.  3  he  appeals  to  what  is  true  of  every  high  priest, 
so  here  he  appeals  to  what  is  true  of  every  priest ;  but  now 
to  point  a  contrast,  not  a  resemblance.  He  stands,  makes  the 
impression  of  being  an  antithesis  to  sat  down,  ver.  12.  It  is, 
however,  if  so,  without  emphasis.  The  contrasted  thoughts  are, 
a  service  that  does  not  cease,  and  one  that  does.  The  two 
expressions  are  the  convenient  ones  to  use  along  with  the  rest  of 
the  language  that  represents  this.  Two  things  are  mentioned  of 
the  priest  (a)  he  ministers  day  by  day,  (b)  and  offers  often  the 
same  sacrifices.  The  next  clause  is  not  a  third  thing  added  to 
the  foregoing,^  but  (as  the  a7rji/£9,  properly  interpreted,  shows)  a 
reiteration  of  the  character  of  the  sacrifices  preparatory  to  predi- 
cating what  follows.  The  which  sacrifices  can  never  divest  of  sin, 
says  the  Apostle,  using  the  word  -^p^shr^,  which  occurs  only 
thrice  beside  in  the  New  Testament.^  Here  the  sacrifices  are 
named  as  the  same,  meaning  the  same  every  day,  and  described 
by  mri'/zg,  etc.,  which  classifies  them  as  to  their  nature.  At  ver. 
1,  "  the  same  "  are  defined  by  aU  as  those  which  are  offered  by 
those  approaching  God.  Presenting  the  contrast,  the  Apostle 
says  : 

Yer.  12.  But  he,  having  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins  forever, 
sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God : 

Here,  for  reasons  already  given  at  ver.  1,  we  join  ei'?  to 
dt7jv£xi<i  =  {oTeveT  to  the  foregoing  verb,^  and  understand  the 
Apostle  to  describe  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  a  thing  done  forever.  In 

»  With  von  Hof. ;  against  Del.  *  Acts  xxvii.  20,  40  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  16. 

'  See  in  Alford  the  vote  of  expositors,  which  balances  pretty  equally,  as  do 
also  his  own  representations,  when  choosing  the  connection  with  the  following 
verb. 


X.  12.]  vs.    ONE   SACRIFICE    FOR  SINS    FOREVER.  353 

favor  of  this  is,  that  it  expresses  an  appropriate  antitliesis  to  tlie 
sacrificing  often  of  the  Levitical  priest.  Against  the  rendering : 
sat  down  forever,  is  to  be  objected,  that  it  cannot  be  the  aim  of 
the  Apostle  to  bring  in  anything  to  prove  that  Christ's  offering 
could  not  be  offered  again,  seeing  this  has  been  proved  before, 
and  has  again  and  again  been  used  as  something  ascertained. 
Thus  a  chief  reason  for  the  construction  objected  to  falls  to  the 
ground.  Moreover,  it  is  not  said  in  Ps.  ex. :  "  sit  on  my  right 
hand " /oreyer,  but  "sit  .  .  until  I  make,"  etc. ;  and  this  the 
Apostle  repeats  from  the  Psalm.  Making  the  sit  until  a  "  sitting 
forever,"  is  too  considerable  an  addition,  for  even  the  Apostle  to 
make  without  some  unambiguous  expression  of  it.  The  :  "  thou 
art  a  priest  forever,"  of  the  Psalm  does  not  add  the  notion  "  for- 
ever "  to  "  sitting  at  the  right  hand,"  either  in  the  Psalm  or  in  the 
use  the  Apostle  makes  of  it.  Furthermore,  the  rendering  :  "  sat 
down  forever,"  suggests,  though  needlessly  indeed,  a  conflict  with 
1  Cor.  XX.  25-28.  But,  though  there  would  be  no  conflict,  we 
may  assume  that  the  Author  would  not  express  himself  in  a  way 
to  occasion  the  mistake. 

Instead  of  many  sacrifices,  is  the  one  sacrifice ;  instead  of  a 
perpetual  ministry  that  needs  standing  to  it  continually,  is  a  fin- 
ished work  done  forever,  afler  which,  He  who  did  it  sat  down 
at  God's  right  hand ;  ^  instead  of  sacrifices  that  could  never 
divest  of  sins,  is  one  sacrifice,  that  perfects  forever,  as  is  declared 
in  ver.  14.  But  before  giving  expression  to  this,  the  capital 
thought,  the  Apostle,  using  the  words  of  Ps.  ex. :  already  quoted 
amplifies  the  notion  :  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

A^er.  13.  Henceforth,  waiting  till  Ms  enemies  be  made  his  foot- 
stool. 

It  is  a  frequent  mistake  to  suppose^  that  these  words  express 
the  object  of  the  waiting,  in  the  sense,  that  while  waiting,  the 
subjection  of  the  enemies  is  to  take  place.  Thus  i/.(hyi);j.ev<)<^  is 
rendered:  "expecting;"^  and  a  supposed  conflict  is  pointed  out 
between  the  representation  here  and  1  Cor.  xv.  25-28  ;  *  as  in 
the  latter  place  the  destruction  of  Christ's  enemies  is  placed  after 

M.  13;  Ps.  ex.  1.  ''AsLun. 

»  Versions  of  1611, 1881.  ♦  So  Lun. 

23 


354  CHEIST    HENCEFORTH    WAITING.  [x.  13. 

His  second  comiug.  But  ixdex-  here  means  waiting.^  And  the 
Apostle  does  not  describe  what  Christ  waits  for  or  expects,  as  if 
His  activity,  or  at  least  His  thoughts  turned  into  a  new  channel. 
We  have  a  previous  representation  that  forbids  that,  viz.,  that 
He  is  minister  of  the  Holies  in  heaven  itself  (viii.  1,  2).  What 
is  described  is,  the  session  at  the  right  hand  in  respect  to  its 
duration  (to  Xmnov  is  temporal,  and  not  material,  or  expressive  of 
the  object),^  and  thus  the  completeness  of  Christ's  cessation  from 
further  sacrifice.  The  reference  to  His  enemies  becoming  His 
footstool  both  marks  the  limit  when  there  shall  be  a  change  from 
waiting,  and  enhances  the  notion  of  His  certainly  no  more  offer- 
ing the  same  sacrifice,  by  reminding  the  readers  of  the  nature  of 
the  next  coming  into  the  world.  It  will  be,  according  to  the 
uniform  Christian  belief,  to  see  His  enemies  made  His  footstool. 
This  presents  the  strongest  possible  contrast  between  the  time 
when  He  first  came  and  offered  the  sacrifice  of  Himself  and 
before  His  sitting  at  the  right  hand,  and  the  time  when  He  comes 
again.^  The  representation,  according  to  this  view,  is  like  that 
ix.  28,  differing  only  in  the  thing  that  characterizes  the  next 
coming  into  the  world.  At  ix.  28  the  second  appearing  is  char- 
acterized as  being  in  order  to  save  those  expecting  Him.  Here 
it  is  designated  as  the  period  when  His  enefnies  shall  be  made 
His  footstool.  But  the  contrast  just  noted  does  not  seem  to 
explain  adequately  this  mention  of  the  threateniug  nature  of  the 
event  that  follows  the  sitting  at  the  right  hand.  If  only  the 
impossibility  of  coming  again  to  offer  Himself  a  sacrifice  be  the 
notion,  why  not  point  to  the  milder  and  cheering  prospect  pointed 
to  ix.  28  ?  We  think  the  present  form  is  chosen  to  suggest  a 
warning  similar  to  those  that  have  interrupted  the  discourse  ii. 
1-3;  (where  see  the  long  note)  iii.  7-19  ;  vi.  4-8,  and  that  are 
sounded  again  x.  26-31  ;  xii.  25-27.  It  is  significant  that  in 
Acts  ii.  34,  35,  the  Apostle  Peter  quotes  the  same  Psalm-text, 
and  then  follows  it  with  the  warning :  "  save  yourselves  from 
this  crooked  generation  "  (ver.  40)  as  if  that  generation  comprised 
the  enemies  that  were  to  be  made  the  footstool.  The  present 
mention  seems  to  say  :  Beware  of  ignoring  what  this  priest  has 
'  Comp.  Del.,  Alford,  von  Hof.  ^  von  Hof.  *  Comp.  von  Hof. 


X.  14.]      ONE   OFFERING   HATH    PERFECTED   FOREVER.  355 

done  so  completely.  It  is  an  echo  of  the  :  "  How  shall  we  escape 
having  neglected  so  great  salvation?"  It  touches  the  note  tliat 
is  sounded  more  clearly  in  vers.  26-31.  It  says:  Look  to  the 
finished  work  of  this  High  Priest  for  salvation,  or  look  to  be 
counted  among;  His  enemies  when  He  comes  to  deal  with  them 
in  the  spirit  of  Luke  xix.  27  :     "  But  those  mine  enemies,"  etc. 

To  the  representation  that  Christ,  having  sacrificed  once,  ceased 
so  completely  as  described,  the  Apostle  adds  a  statement  that 
explains  it. 

Ver.  14.  For  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  them 
that  are  sanctified. 

The  work  was  complete  and  needed  no  repetition.  What  was 
once  done  made  him  a  perfect  saviour.*  In  the  same  sense,  in 
respect  to  those  to  be  saved,  it  perfected  ihevi  forever.  We  have 
noted  that  our  verses  11-14  relate  to  the  priest^ s  part  in  the  sacri- 
fices. When  the  priest  has  done  his  part,  he  has  accomplished  all 
that  the  sacrifice  can  do.  As  far  as  sacrifice  can  do  it,  he  has  per- 
fected those  offering  it.  Christ's  sacrifice  does  perfect.  Having 
made  it,  he  has  perfected  forever.  This  is  expressed  as  a  thing 
accomplished  with  reference  to  Chrisi^s  performance,  not  with 
reference  to  our  partaking  of  the  effect  of  it.  In  other  words,  we 
may  not  regard  :  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  them  that  are 
sanctified,  and  :  by  one  offering  they  that  are  sanctified  were  per- 
fected, as  a  personal  experience,  scil.  were,  then,  when  the  offering 
was  made,  as  convertible  expressions.^  They  that  are  sanctified 
are  perfected  only  when  they  have  been  sanctified  personally, 
which  must  be  an  individual  affair,  and  fall  within  the  in- 
dividual's history.  But  perfection  ivhen  attainc^l  is  by  means  of 
what  Christ  did  when  he  suffered.  He  then  perfected  all :  he 
has  perfected  and  does  nothing  more  to  perfect.  He  has  done  all 
that  sacrifice  does. 

The  present  context,  using  rthcow  vers.  1,  14,  and  d^j«C<M  vers. 
10,  14,  invites  us  to  define  their  meaning.  Our  vcr.  14  shows 
that  they  are  not  synonymous,  and  that  sanctifying'  precedes 
perfecting.  Taking  ver.  10  with  ver.  14,  it  appears  that  both 
sanctifying  and  perfecting  are  by  means  of  the  one  offering  of 

*  ii.  10 ;  V.  9.  '  Comj).  on  ver.  29. 


356  Ts?.etu(jj   AND    dyid^w,  x.  14.'] 

Christ's  body.  At  ii.  1 1  we  have  it  expressed,  that  they  who  are 
sanctified  are  sanctified  by  Christ.  At  the  same  time  tliey  are 
called  "  the  sanctified,"  not  with  reference  to  qualifications  found 
in  themselves,  and  what  they  do,  but  with  reference  to  the  pur- 
pose of  God  respecting  them,  and  what  he  does.  His  purpose  is 
denoted  by  the  expression  :  "  in  bringing  many  sons  to  glory  ;  " 
and  the  effect  is  expressed  by  :  "  sons,"  and  by  saying  that  they 
and  their  Sanctifier  :  "  are  all  of  one."  Agreeably  to  this,  we 
have  found  that  "  sanctify "  has  its  usual  meaning  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  viz.,  being  made  holy,  i.  e.,  set  over  to  God 
as  his.  The  agent  of  this  is  Christ,  and  the  means  is  his  suffering. 
"  To  perfect  does  not  mean  to  endow  with  all  excellent  quali- 
ties, but  to  bring  to  the  '  end,'  that  is,  the  appropriate  end,  or 
that  which  corresponds  to  the  idea.  Hence  it  is  a  relative  term, 
and  may  be  used  of  bringing  to  completion  within  a  variety  of 
spheres."  *  Said  of  Christ  (ii.  10  ;  v.  9),  who  said  :  "  I  sanctify 
myself,"  ^  "  to  perfect"  means  to  accomplish  that  which  made  Him 
what  he  was  set  apart  to  be,  viz.,  a  fully  qualified  Saviour.  Said 
of  those  that  are  saved,  "  to  perfect "  means  that,  having  been 
sanctified,  they  are  in  reality  made  to  correspond  to  the  idea,  or 
the  relation  to  which  they  have  been  set  apart,  as  belonging  to 
God.  This  is  by  divesting  them  of  sin  (ver.  11)  in  that  way 
which  is  accomplished  by  sacrifice.  This  is  not  by  imparting  to 
them  inward  holiness,^  but  by  forgiveness,  so  that,  no  longer 
regarded  as  sinners,  they  are  in  a  perfect  relation  to  God,  wherein 
they  may  come  to  him  and  serve  him  with  boldness.  As  this 
was  represented  under  the  law  by  sacrifices  that  could  not  make 
perfect,  and  by  what  needed  often  to  be  renewed,  "  perfecting  " 
was  a  notion  that  did  not  in  itself  involve  once-for-allness,  or 
foreverness.  If,  then,  the  perfecting  accomplished  by  Christ's 
sacrifice  is  a  perfecting  forever,  needing  no  renewal,  it  needed  to 
be  clearly  stated.  Hence  the  reiteration  of  the  notion  :  "  perfect 
forever."  As  has  been  noted,  "  to  sanctify,"  being  to  set  over 
to  God,  involves  the  notion  of  being  done  once  for  all  and  thus 
forever,  and  does  not  admit  of  degrees ;  so  that  to  qualify  it  by 
"  perfectly  "  or  "  forever  "  is   a   redundancy.     But  dycdffac  ofid^ 

^  Davidson.  ^  John  xvii.  17.  *  Against  Del.  on  vers.  10,  14. 


X.  15-18.]        THE   HOLY   SPIRIT    BEARS    WITNESS.  357 

6XoT£ht'i  =  "  sanctify  you  wholly  "  ^  is  no  ralundancy,  but  suitable 
emphasis,  to  express  that  all,  and  not  a  part  must  be  sanctified. 

The  perfect  relation,  thus  established  is  the  anterior  condition 
of  all  that  makes  one  inwardly  and  subjectively  what  one  must 
be  to  enjoy  the  communion  of  God.  The  latter  is  found  in  ap- 
proaching God  and  obtaining  the  blessing  that  makes  one  such. 
It  is  only  consummated  when  Christ  comes  again  for  salvation, 
and  when  the  eternal  inheritance  is  received.^ 

The  Apostle  finally  appeals  to  scripture,  viz.,  the  words  of 
Jeremiah  xxxi.  which  he  has  used  with  such  eifect  viii.  8-12, 
using  now  only  as  much  as  suits  his  purpose.  He  also  modifies 
that  for  no  other  reason  we  may  suppose,  than  to  present  briefly 
what  is  to  his  purposes. 

Vcr.  15.  And  also  the  Holy  Spirit  beareth  witness  to  us;  for 
after  having  said:  IG.  This  is  the  covenant  which  I  will  covenant 
with  them  after  those  days,  the  Lord  says :  putting  my  laws  on  their 
hearts,  and  on  their  mind  I  will  write  them.  17.  And  their  sins 
and  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more.  18.  Now  where  remission 
of  these  is,  is  no  longer  offering  for  sin. 

By  (xapzupzi  ^/ir>  =  bears  witness  to  us,  we  must  understand  the 
Apostle  to  mean  that  the  Holy  Spirit  supports  and  corroborates 
his,  the  Apostle's  representation.^  For  in  the  New  Testament 
fiapTupelv  with  the  dative  of  the  person  has  this  meaning,  and  not 
the  sense  of  "declaring  to."  *  With  this  meaning,  the  r^;j.tv  means 
the  Apostle  and  teachers  of  the  truth  like  himself.  With  this 
interpretation  there  is  felt  to  be  no  elision  of  what  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit,  and  less  awkwardness  appears  in  the  follow- 
ing quotation,  than  with  the  interpretation  we  reject. 

The  scripture  language  used  here  was  quoted  at  viii.  8-12  as 
the  word  of  God.  Here  it  is  referred  to  as  the  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Sj)irit."^  This  is  because  the  Apostle  a])peals  to  it  as 
prophecy.®     And  this  preface  is  one  reason  for  dividing  the  quo- 

1 1  Thess.  V.  22.  Mx.  15,  28. 

'  So  Riiphel,  Jac.  Capell.,  Wolf,  Baiimgarten,  Lindsay;  against  de  Wette, 
Liin.,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Alford. 

*  See  Grimm's  Lex. ;  comp.  John  iii.  26,  28 ;  v.  33 ;  Acts  x.  43  ;  xv.  8 ;  xxii.  5. 

^Comp.  iii.  7.  "vonllof. 


358  NO   MORE  OFFERING   FOR  SIN.  [x.  15-18. 

tation  so  as  to  make  the  second  part  consist  of  ver.  17.'  For  if, 
with  most  expositors/  we  take  the  second  part  to  begin  with 
Xi/si  xOpio?,  and  suppose  the  Author  to  adopt  tliat  phrase  as  his  own, 
instead  of  its  being  continued  citation,  then  what  is  the  chief 
point  of  the  appeal,  viz.,  ver.  17,  is  brought  forward  as  the  word 
of  God,  and  not  as  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit.^  Another 
reason  for  making  the  division  at  ver.  17,  is,  that  between  the 
words  of  vers,  16  and  17  there  is  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
quotation  left  out,  as  it  stands  in  viii.  10-12.  This  itself  makes 
the  division  that  represents  the  language  quoted  as  saying  first 
one  (ver.  16),  and  afterwards  the  other,  (ver.  17).  It  remains, 
however,  perplexing,  that  the  Author,  whose  style  is  so  finished, 
should  omit  the  correlative  expression  to  his  /lerd  to  £lprf/.ivai,  that 
we  look  for,  and  that  is  usually  supplied  by  a :  "  then  saith  he,"  * 
or  the  like.  And  expositors  have  usually  omitted  to  say  why  he 
quotes  the  first  part  at  all ;  and  have  interpreted  what  is  Avritten 
here  as  they  might  interpret  if  vers.  16,  17  were  not  in  the  text. 

The  whole  of  the  quotation  is  useful  for  the  Apostle's  purpose. 
The  first  part  (ver.  16),  declares  the  divine  purpose  of  establish- 
ing a  new  covenant  after  those  days,  and  the  inward  and  spir- 
itual nature  of  its  laws ;  the  second  declares  the  remission  of 
sins.  The  two  are  produced  with  omissions  before  the  second 
so  as  to  make  it  manifest  that  the  second  is  said  with  relation  to 
the  conditions  referred  to  in  the  first.  This  prepares  for  the  fol- 
lowing statement :  and  saying  that  the  Holy  Spirit  bears  witness 
with  him,  the  Apostle  with  one  brief,  final  word  declares  the 
fundamental  and  revolutionary  truth  to  which  all  his  argument 
has  tended. 

Now  where  remission  of  these  is,  is  no  more  offering  for  sin. 

This  statement  is  often  read  as  if  the  Apostle  said :  wherever 
God  remembers  sins  no  more,  there  is  no  more  offering  for  sin. 
We  have,  however,  a  more  definite  and  qualified  expression, 
though  equally  comprehensive  in  its  effect.  For  the  vTtuv  =  where, 
is  not  wherever  and  universally.  It  is  somewhere.  The  orow 
refers  to  the  relation  or  sphere  wherein  this  statement  is  true, 
and  "sets  it  forth  in  a  local  conception,  like  the  Latin  'uhi,  i.  e.,  qua 

*  So  von  Hof.,  Alford,  etc.    ''  e.g.,  Del.,  Liin.    ^  von  Hof.    *  Version  1881. 


X.  15-18.]  REVIEW  OF  VI.  1 — X.  18.  359 

in  re'  or  ' in  quo  renim  statu.'  The  relation  is  an  objective  real 
one,  *  historically '  come  to  pass."  ^  It  is  when  God  establishes 
the  New  Covenant,  as  expressed  in  ver.  16.  With  that  as  his 
~ou  (T-w,  and  with  the  power  furnished  Jby  the  concurring  testi- 
mony of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Apostle  moves  the  whole  mighty 
and  long-enduring  fabric  of  the  law,  with  its  sacrifices  and  priest- 
hood, and  the  burden  of  them  is  gone  for  believing  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile alike. 

The  Apostle  has  achieved  his  purpose  proposed  at  vi.  1,  and 
has  submitted  his  readers  to  a  discipline  fitted  to  lead  them  on  to 
full  growth.  Having  passed  over  it,  we  observe  that  the 
instruction  has  been  founded  on  the  Old  Testament  scriptures, 
and  that,  while  later  portions  of  the  Scriptures  have  been  appealed 
to,  the  text  has  been  the  Pentateuch.  Thus,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
has  dealt  with  "  the  beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God."  Moreover, 
we  have  observed  that  his  method  has  been  to  begin  by  reciting 
the  elementary  matters  from  which  he  reasons.  Thus  he  pre- 
sented Melchizedek  (vii.  1-3),  and  the  Tabernacle  (ix.  1-7),  and 
the  use  of  blood  (ix.  18-22),  and  besides  these,  other  particulars, 
as  his  argument  went  on.^  Observing  this,  we  must  believe,  as 
was  represented  above  at  v.  12,  that  where  the  Apostle  says  : 
"  ye  have  need  that  some  one  teach  you  the  elements  of  the 
beginning  of  the  oracles  of  God,"  he  means  by  the  oracles  of  God 
the  Old  Testament,  and  by  the  beginning  of  those  oracles,  the 
Pentateuch,  and  by  the  elements  such  things  as  he  actually  uses. 
We  notice  that  they  are  facts  and  institutions,  rather  than  state- 
ments of  doctrines  or  truths ;  and  further,  that  "  elements  "  is  a 
fitting  designation.  Observing,  also,  the  method  the  Apostle  has 
actually  used,  we  infer,  that  when  he  says  the  words  of  v.  1 2,  he 
has  the  intention  of  doing  himself  what  he  says  is  necessary  for 
his  readers. 

The  introduction  to  this  extended  course  of  teaching  is  the 
exhortation  of  iv.  14—16.  And  we  find  that  the  passage,  now  to 
follow,  has  much  in  common  with  that,  especially  with  the  words  : 
"  Having  then  a  great  high  priest  who  hath  passed  through  the 

'  Meyer  on  Col.  iii.  11 ;  comp.  Grimn,  Lex.  onov-  Matt.  vi.  19,  20. 
*See  above  on  v.  12. 


360  BOLDNESS   REGARDING   THE   ENTRANCE   [x.  19-22  a. 

heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  confession. 
Let  us  therefore  draw  near  with  boldness  unto  the  throne  of 
grace  that  we  may  receive  mercy  and  find  grace  for  timely  help." 
(iv.  14,  16).  Doing  what  is  here  exhorted,  and  doing  it  with 
boldness  and  the  full  measure  of  faith,  and  thorough  intelligence 
as  to  the  Christian's  privilege,  is  the  condition  of  full-growth,  or 
adult  maturity  in  Christian  life,  to  which  the  Apostle  would 
bring  his  readers.  Having  now  finished  the  instruction  fitted  to 
bring  that  about,  he  resumes  the  exhortation,  and  also  the  warn- 
ings appropriate  to  such.  The  «yi' =  therefore  with  which  he 
does  this,  refers  to  all  the  instruction  that  has  followed  the  exhorta- 
tion iv.  14-16.  We  shall  see  below  at  ver.  24,  that  there  is 
even  reason  for  taking  the  reference  of  ovy  =  then,  back  to  iii.  1. 

Ver.  19.  Having,  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  as  regards  the 
entrance  of  the  holies  in  the  blood  of  Jesus,  20.  which  he  dedi- 
cated for  us  a  way  new  and  living  through  the  vail,  that  is  his 
flesh,  21.  and  a  great  priest  over  the  house  of  God,  22  o.  let  us  draw 
near  with  a  true  heart  in  fulness  of  faith. 

Concerning  the  recurrence  of  the  title  brethren,  and  what  may 
be  inferred  from  it,  see  below  on  ver.  24. 

We  have  here  a  comprehensive  preface  to  the  exhortation  : 
let  us  draw  near,  which  expresses  the  qualification  for  doing  as 
exhorted.  The  preface  summarizes,  from  the  foregoing  extended 
exposition,  the  essential  things  for  drawing  near ;  by  which  is 
meant  the  same  as  is  more  fully  expressed  iv.  16,  as  "drawing 
near  the  throne  of  grace."  It  is  a  technical  religious  word,^  and 
expresses  the  whole  notion  involved,  without  the  amplification 
needful  for  its  full  and  exact  expression  to  one  unfamiliar  with 
it.  These  essential  things  are  two,  and  they  are  represented  as  the 
possession  (e/ owre?)  of  him  that  draws  near ;  (a)  boldness  for,  or  in 
regard  to  the  entrance  of  the  holies,  (6)  a  great  priest  over  the 
house  of  God.  In  respect  to  (a),  the  Apostle  now  says  :  having 
boldness ;  whereas  at  iv.  16  his  exhortation  is :  "  let  us  draw  near 
with  boldness."  The  difference  is  owing  to  his  having,  by  his 
extended  instructions,  shown  the  ground  for  such  boldness.  And 
this  shows  in  what  sense  he  says  :  "  having  boldness."     It  is  not 

'  Comp.  Del.;  also  ver.  1. 


X.  19-22  a.]    OF   THE    HOLIES    IN    CIIRIST'S   BLOOD.  3G1 

in  the  sense  that  they  actually  possess  it,  so  that  now  they  are 
bold  ;  but  tliat  it  is  there  for  them  to  have  :  and  being  now  pre- 
sented so  completely  that  nothing  remains  but  for  them  to  appro- 
priate it,  it  is  assumed  they  have  it.  And  so  the  Apostle 
assumes,  speaking  in  the  first  person,  and  comprehending  his 
readers  as  now,  like  himself,  at  the  point  of  full-groA\-th.  At  vi. 
1  he  said  :  "  let  us  go  on  to  full  growth." 

By  boldness  is  meant  the  same  as  at  iv.  16,  a  confidence 
inspired  by  the  reality  and  certainty  of  something  outward  and 
objective ;  it  is  not  something  inward  and  subjective,  like  bravery. 
Here,  however,  it  is  inspired  by  the  certainty  respecting  the 
entrance  of  the  holies,  whicih  the  foregoing  argument  has  demon- 
strated, and  thus  is  designated :  boldness  in  respect  to  the  entrance. 
By  erVooov  is  not  meant  "entering,"  or  the  act  of  entering,  but 
entrance,  I.  e.,  way  of  admission,  and  ei^rrjveiffoSov  may  not  be  trans- 
lated "  for  entering  "  or  "  to  enter,"  ^  but  for  or  as  respects  the 
entrance.^  This  appears  from  the  o^Jov  nway  that  comes  in  a])po- 
sition  after  fji/ -which.     It  follows  from  this  that   h  to)  aliiazt 

^I-qffou  cannot  be  joined  to  eltniSov,  as  iv  aijiari  aXXinpUo  to  eKrifr^erat 

ix.  25.  The  notion  of  entering  with  or  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  is  not 
expressed  here.  In  the  blood  of  Jesus,^  designates  the  ground 
for  the  boldness ;  because  there  is  that  blood,  and  it  has  the  effi- 
cacy described,  as  e.  g.,  at  ix.  12,  we  have  boldness  in  respect  to 
the  entrance  of  the  Holies,  that  it  is  an  open  way  for  us.  There 
is  admission  to  the  Holies,  by  which  is  meant  heaven,  where,  vi. 
20,  it  is  said,  Christ  has  entered  a  forerunner  for  us. 

The  Apostle  defines  the  entrance.  For  which  refers  to 
entrance.  It  is  that  which  Jesus  dedicated  ^  for  us ;  by  which  is 
meant  that  it  was  made  for  our  benefit  and  devoted  to  our  use 
by  Jesus.  He  called  it  a  new  way  {izp6<r(fari)v,  an  adjective  that 
occurs  no  where  else  in  the  New  Tetament),^  meaning  a  way 
newly  or  freshly  made.     He  also  calls  it  a  living  way.     What  is 

1  Versions  1611,  1881,  »  von  Ilof.,  Angus. 

'  Comp.  at  ver.  10,  why  this  name  may  be  used  here. 

*Comp.  at  ix.  18. 

'  But  comp.  Acts  xviii.  2.     And  see  below  under  yer.  27. 


362  THE   NEW   AND   LIVING   WAY.  [x.  19-22  a 

meant  by  this  seems  needlessly  obscured  by  the  effort  to  make 
it  express  too  much.  So  simple  a  phrase  does  not  admit  of  being 
interpreted  as  though  it  expressed  an  antithesis  to  "  the  dead 
ceremony  of  entrance  into  the  earthly  holy  place."  ^  The  fact 
that  there  never  before  was  a  way  (ix.  8)  to  go,  excludes  this 
antithesis.  Nor  is  it  to  be  burdened  with  both  that  meaning  and 
more  added  on,  like  the  interpretation  :  "  The  Apostle  calls  it  a 
living  way,  because,  not  merely  is  it  there  to  be  walked,  but 
itself  bears  him  who  walks  it  whither  he  would  go,  seeing  it  is 
nothing  else  than  that  relation  of  humanity  to  God  which  was 
made  by  the  departure  of  Jesus  to  God,  and  which  continues  in 
His  communion  with  God."  "  The  Author's  meaning  in  the 
adjectives  new  and  living"  is  to  be  deri\fed  from  what  he  repre- 
sents concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  way  was  dedi- 
cated. Jesus  made  the  way  through  the  vail,  that  is  his  flesh. 
In  this  representation  it  is  obvious  that  the  Apostle  has  not  only 
in  mind  the  arrangements  of  the  Tabernacle  as  he  has  described 
them  ix.  1-7,  but  also  the  interpretation  he  there  gave  in  ver.  8, 
that  while  the  anterior  tent  stood  for  use,  the  way  of  the  Holies, 
i.  €.,  heaven,  was  not  manifest.  The  Apostle  now  represents 
expressly  that  that  way  was  made  manifest  by  Jesus.  In  doing 
so,  he  does  not  represent  the  way  as  one  that  was  there,  but  one 
that  was  made  for  us  by  Jesus.  Accordingly,  he  does  not  repre- 
sent that  the  vail  was  drawn  aside  or  removed,  as  something  that 
hid  what  was  there.  He  says  Jesus  made  the  way  through  (<Jcd, 
locally)  the  vail,  an  expression  not  elsewhere  used.  This  denotes 
a  way  that  was  never  there  before,  and  tliat  nothing  was  to  hide 
or  close  up.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  as  is  commonly  done, 
that  in  this  mention  of  the  vail  and  flesh  of  Jesus  in  so  myster- 
ious a  connection,  there  is  reflected  the  equally  mysterious  occur- 
rence of  the  rending  of  the  vail  of  the  temple  when  Jesus  died  on 
the  cross.^  But  the  reference  is  not  express,  nor  is  there  anything 
in  the  present  expression  or  in  that  occurrence  that  makes  it 
obvious  how,  to  the  words  through  the  vail,  the  Apostle  adds  that 
is  his  flesh.  This  double  expression  intimates  that  saying  :  Jesus 
made  a  way  through  the  vail,  and  :  Jesus  made  a  way  through 

^  Alford ;  comp.  Del.  and  most.  *  von  Hof.  '  Matt,  xxvii.  51. 


X.  19-22  «.]      DEDICATED   THROUGH   THE   VAIL.  363 

His  flesh,  are  parallel  terms.  Either  expression,  taken  by  itself, 
would  be  easy  of  interpretation.  But  taken  in  combination,  their 
interpretation  is  difficult.  The  common  interpretation  under- 
stands the  Apostle  to  affirm,  that  the  flesh,  /.  e.,  the  human  nature 
of  Jesus,  was  a  vail,  "that  hung  like  a  curtain  between  Him  and 
the  divine  sanctuary  into  which  He  would  enter ;  and  in  order 
to  such  entrance,  this  curtain  had  to  be  withdrawn  by  death,  even 
as  the  high  priest  had  to  draw  aside  the  temple-vail  in  order  to 
make  his  entry  into  the  holy  of  holies."  ^  This  interpretation 
demands  the  further  definition,  that  "  the  flesh  of  Jesus  is  not  for 
us  what  it  was  for  Him,  a  curtain  that,  as  long  as  He  lived  in  it, 
separated  Him  from  the  place  of  God  who  is  above  the  world. 
Thus  only  of  Him  can  it  be  said  that  He  went  to  God  through 
the  vail."  2 

All  this,  however,  is  a  conception  of  Christ's  human  nature 
that  has  no  parallel  either  in  the  present  epistle,  or  elsewhere  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  is  too  much  to  evolve  out  of  the  present 
expression  alone.  It  is,  in  fact,  deduced  from  what  is  itself  an 
inference,  viz.,  that  the  Apostle  calls  Christ's  flesh  a  vail,  mean- 
ing such  a  vail  as  that  in  the  tabernacle.  But  we  may  well 
reconsider  this  natural  inference,  when  we  see  that  it  is  pregnant 
with  such  consequences  as  those  evolved  above.  A  closer  scru- 
tiny shows  that  the  inference  referred  to  is  not  necessary.  It  is 
not  the  vail  and  his  flesh  that  are  parallel  terms  in  the  represen- 
tation before  us.  It  is  :  dedicated  through  the  vail,  and  :  dedi- 
cated through  his  flesh  that  are  parallel.  As  the  rending  of  the 
tem})le-vail  simultaneously  with  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross 
is  the  only  thing  that  is  known  that  may  throw  light  on  the 
present  expression,  it  is  nearer  the  truth  to  interpret  with  Ebrard  : 
"  To  the  emblematical  fact  of  the  rending  of  the  emblematical  cur- 
tain, corresponded  the  fact  of  the  violent  slaying  of  Christ."  But 
there  is  no  need  of  supposing  either  emblem  or  allegory  to  be 
intended.  AVhen  Arnold  of  Winkclried  opened  the  ranks  of  the 
opposing  Austrians  by  grasping  an  armful  of  their  pointed  lances 
and  burying  them  in  his  body,  the  historian  or  poet  might  say,  that 
"he  made  way  for  liberty  through  the  severed  ranks, — that  is 

*  Del.,  similarly  von  Ilof.,  Liin.,  Alford.  *  von  Ilof. 


364  DEDICATED   TECBOUGH   JISUS*    FLESH.    [^  19-22  a. 

thioogh  his  bodv."  And  the  reader  wonid  not  suppose  a 
parallel  to  be  made  b«:vreen  "  body"  and  "ranks,"  He  would 
nnderstand  that  two  things  occurring  siniulianeouslv-,  and  equallv 
concerned  in  the  thing  achieved,  may  have  equal  mention  in  what 
is  described-^  And  so  we  may  interpret  the  expression  before  tis. 
And  in  doing  so,  it  is  not  even  necessary  to  suppose  that  the 
Apc«5tle  refers  to  the  rending  of  the  temple  vail.  It  is  enough 
that  his  foregoing  instructions  have  presented  both  Christ's  enter- 
ing within  the  vail  a  foreninner  for  us  (vL  19,  20),  and  Hi> 
entering  into  the  H'jlies  by  His  own  blood  (ix.  12)  as  simultane- 
ous acts,  whereby  the  way  is  made  for  us  to  approach  unto  Gt>d. 
Giving  both  equal  mention  in  defining  "the  entiaiice  of  the 
holies.''  the  Ap;«sTle  says :  Jesus  dedicated  it  through  the  vail, 
that  is  his  flesh ;  a  waj  new  and  living. 

With  this  simple  understanding  of  the  words  describing 
the  dedication  of  the  way.  we  may  more  easily  apprehend  what 
is  meant  by  calling  it :  new  and  living.  By  the  first  is  meant,  as 
already  said,  newly,  or  freshly  made.  Yet  it  seems  likely^  that 
the  Apostle  is  led  to  use  the  unusual  word  -p6<rcaro>  to  express 
this,  with  some  reference  to  its  primary  meaning  =  "  newly  slain,'' 
because  of  the  manner  in  which  the  way  was  made  :  as  one  sur- 
veving  a  ruined  city  would  likely  describe  the  fortunes  of  its 
citizens  as  *'  dilapidated.''  In  calling  the  way  living,  the  Apos- 
tle is  similarly  influenced  by  the  idea  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
way  was  dedicated  through  flesh.  Instead,  then,  of  interpreting 
the  meaning  as  given  ab«:»ve.  we  may  take  as  much  of  Ebrard's 
as  says,  that  the  way  is  called  Living  because  "  it  consists  in  a 
living  act,"  and  not  include  with  him  any  idea  of  contrast  with 
the  k<td  and  earthly  way  of  the  legal  priests,  or  contrast  with 
any  other  way.  To  interpret  living  way  to  mean  '*  a  life-giving 
way  "*  is  to  make  a  single  word  express  what  it  is  the  aim  of 
our  whole  passage  to  signiJy :  an  objection  that  may  be  made  to 
other  compendious  meanings  like  th<jtse  cited  above,     Finallv.  as 

1  Comp  -'Tcic-i,  PML  12. 

*  A5  3tig:eested  bv  Gtrhard  in  DeL  with  dissent  by  DeL ;  bat  apptoved  br 

'  As  de  Wene.  C'Lsiiauien,  Sruart.  etc 


X.   19-22  a.]    A    GREAT    PRIEST   OVER    GOD's    HOUSE.  365 

regards  the  entrance  now  described,  there  is  notliing  in  tlic  words 
before  us  that  expresses  the  nution,  commonly  assumed/  tliat  the 
way  is  one  first  trodden  by  Christ  Himself  and  so  inaugurated 
for  us.  Nothing  is  said  here  of  the  way  Jesus  must  go  to  enter 
the  Holies  ;  but  only  the  way  opened  thither  for  us  is  spoken  of,^ 
and  that  Jesus  opened  it. 

In  regard  to  (6)  the  second  qualification  for  approaching  as 
exhorted,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Izpia  [liya-^  means  great  priest, 
and  that  it  is  of  Jesus  as  Pnest,  and  not  as  High  Priest  that  the 
Apostle  speaks  here.  Nor  is  great  priest  to  be  taken  as  an 
equivalent  expression  for  high  priest.^  And  such  is  his  appro- 
priate designation  when  called,  a  priest  over  the  bouse  of  God. 
"  For  in  that  relation  He  is  not  considered  in  reference  to  what 
makes  Him  the  antitype  of  the  legal  high  priest  in  the  service 
that  peculiarly  belongs  to  the  latter,  but  as  priest  pure  and  sim- 
ple." *  Not  that  priest  involves  the  notion  of  one  set  over  the 
house  of  God.  But  of  this  priest,  because  He  is  a  great  priest, 
this  is  said  of  Him,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  as  it  would  not  be  of 
another.*  It  is  as  Priest  the  Apostle  has  presented  Jesus  in  the 
conclusion  of  his  argument  (vers.  11—14)  and  as  a  Great  Priest, 
seated  at  God's  right  hand  ;  and  so  he  refers  to  Plim  here.  The 
approach  to  which  we  are  exhorted  corresponds  to  that  which 
individuals  made  through  the  mediation  of  the  priests.  Thus  it 
is  as  the  Priest  to  whom  every  one  may  come  for  priestly  media- 
tion that  Jesus  is  here  so  named  ;  and  not  as  High  Priest.  By 
the  house  of  God  is  not  meant  heaven*  and  its  redeemed  inhabi- 
tants, nor  yet  that,  inclusive  of  the  church  on  earth.''  At  iii.  6, 
the  Apostle  has  expressly  and  pointedly  said  that  "  we  are  the 
house  of  God,"  meaning  believers  on  earth  who  hold  fast  tiieir 
boldness  and  hope  firm  to  the  end.  This,  and  the  recurrence  of 
some  of  the  language  there  in  our  present  context  (ver.  23)  are 
sufficient  reason  for  believing  that  he  means  the  same  here. 
Beside,  as  expressing  a  qualification  for  approaching  God  in 

*  e.  g.,  by  de  Wette,  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford,  von  Hof.,  Angus. 

■■'  So  Riehm.  p.  591.  '  Comp.  iv.  14  ;  against  Stuart. 

*  von  Hof.  *  So  von  Hof.;  comp.  "a  son  "  iii.  6. 

*  Against  de  "Wette,  Kielim,  Liin.,  etc.  '  Against  Del. 


366  DRAW    NEAR   WITH    A    TRUE  [x.  19-22  a. 

worship,  it  is  everji^hing  that  we  should  see  in  Jesus  a  Priest 
over  the  house  of  God,  i.  e.,  ourselves ;  whereas,  it  does  not  seem 
plain  what  force  there  might  be  in  saying  that  He  is  Priest  over 
those  in  heaven.  It  is  those  on  earth  that  need  the  priest  by 
whom  to  draw  near. 

Doubly  qualified  as  now  expressed,  viz.,  having  boldness  in 
regard  to  the  entrance,  and  having  such  a  Priest,  the  exhortation 
is  :  let  us  draw  near  to  God  as  He  is  in  the  Holies  or  heaven, 
with  a  true  heart/  i.  e.,  with  an  inward  disposition  in  harmony 
with  the  action  proposed,  and  without  any  inward  contradiction, 
in  fullness  of  faith,^  i.  e.,  being  fully  assured  of  finding  entrance 
and  acceptance  with  God  through  our  Priest.  It  is  not  drawing 
near,  but  drawing  near  in  the  fashion  described,  viz.,  with  a  true 
heart  and  full  faith,  that  is  the  point  of  the  exhortation. 

To  the  exhortation  to  "  draw  near,"  etc.,  the  Apostle  adds : 
"  let  us  hold  fast  the  confession."  We  are  indebted  to  von  Hof- 
mann  for  the  interpretation  that  takes  pepa'^naixivoi  .  .  .  xa^'/apw 
as  prefatory  to  xariywitsv,  in  the  same  way  that :  "  Having  bold- 
ness .  .  house  of  God,"  is  prefatory  to  :  "  let  us  draw  near,"  i,  e., 
giving  the  reason  for  so  doing.  It  is  expedient,  then,  to  repro- 
duce his  own  justification  of  the  construction,  though  somewhat 
abbreviated. 

"  It  is  usual  to  take  :  having-  had  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  conscience,^  and  even  :  and  having  had  our  body  washed  with 
pure  water,*  as  additional  ground  for  the  exhortation  :  '  let  us 
draw  near.'  Additional  ground  is  not  something  one  should 
expect.  If  to  an  exhortation  based  on  reasons  given  in  a  fore- 
going participial  clause,  there  is  joined  another  participial  clause, 
one  would  suppose  that,  in  distinction  from  that  which  has  pre- 
ceded (and  here  in  the  same  line  with  the  expressions  :  *  with  a 
true  heart,'  and  :  '  in  fullness  of  faith  '),  it  would  name  the 
manner  and  means  of  doino;  the  thing:  exhorted.  But  neither 
the  clause  :  '  having  had  our  hearts  sprinlvled  from  an  evil  con- 
.science,'  nor :  '  and  our  body  washed,'  etc.,  is  fitted  to  do  this, 

^  Comp.  LXX.    Isa.  xxxviii.  3.  "  C!omp.  vi.  11. 

'  So  e.  g.y  Bengel,  Boehme,  Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Kurtz,  Ewald. 
*Soe.  g.,  Bleek,  de  Wette.  Del.,  Riehm,  p.  741. 


X.  19-22  a.]  HEART   IN    FULNESS   OF    FAITH.  367 

while  they  are  quite  as  fit  to  be  the  ground  for  the  following 
exhortation,  as  the  participial  clause  ver.  19  sq.  is  iitted  to  be 
the  ground  for  the  exhortation  :  '  let  us  draw  near.'  AA"e  may, 
therefore,  attempt  a  division  of  the  sentences  in  accordance  with 
these  considerations,  undisturbed  by  the  reproach  that  we  clum- 
sily demolish  the  harmonious  structure  of  the  whole,  finely  dis- 
posed period  vers.  19-23.'  And  this  the  more  so,  because  the 
supposed  harmonious  period  closes,  not  with  ver.  23,  but  with 
ver.  25,  and  by  this,  its  much  extolled  structure  loses  quite  as 
much  as  now  the  division  commends  itself  that  makes  of  the 
whole  passage,  vers.  19-25,  two  similar  periods.  Such  a  division 
no  more  mars  the  fineness  of  the  periods,  than  when  :  let  us  hold 
fast,  etc.,  is  made  the  beginning  of  a  second  half,  that  is  uncon- 
nected with  the  first ;  ^  or  when  the  apodosis  begun  with :  '  let  us 
draw  near '  is  made  to  consist  of  three  unequal  parts,^  of 
which,  the  middle  one :  '  let  us  hold  fast,'  etc.,  with  its  sup- 
plement :  '  faithful  is  he  that  promised,'  is  much  inferior  in 
extent  than  the  first  and  third.  The  division  proposed,  assuredly, 
does  less  injustice  to  the  Apostle,  than  when  it  is  assumed,  that 
he  would  have  closed  the  period  with  :  '  our  body  washed  w^ith 
pure  water;'  and  was  only  prompted  to  exhort  still  further,  to 
hold  fast  the  confession,  because  baptism  reminded  him  of  .the 
confession ;  by  which  this  participial  clause,  unobserved,  would 
be  detached  from  the  exhortation  to  which  it  belonged,  and 
attached  to  that  not  originally  intended.^  This  assumption  is 
even  an  admission  that  the  two  participial  clauses  :  '  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,'  and  :  '  our  body  washed  with 
pure  water,'  must  belong  to  one  another.  And  this  they 
assuredly  do,  .  .  and  they  are  the  complement  of  one  another. 
The  perfect  participles  declare  what  has  happened  to  us  once  for 
all.^  On  the  ground  that  such  has  happened  to  us,  the  Apostle 
bases  an  exhortation  to  do  what  is  the  consequence  of  our  [there- 
by] belonging  to  the  church  of  Christ,  after  He  has  given  an 
exhortation,  based  upon  what  we  have  toward  God  through 
Jesus  and  what  we  have  in  Him,  to  observe  the  conduct  that  we 

'  So  Liin.  *  As  e.  </.,  Del.  '  As  e.  g.,  Bleek. 

*  So  Kurtz.  '  Against  Del. 


368  HAVING    HAD    OUR    HEARTS    SPRINKLED,    [x.  22  6,  23. 

ought  in  our  relation  toward  God.  .  .  The  double  possession  in  the 
one  case,  qualifies  us  to  pray  to  God,  as  the  Apostle  has  required, 
and  in  the  other  this  two-fold  benefit  binds  us  in  duty  to  do  what 
He  will  now  require.  And  the  two  halves  of  the  section  stand 
along  side  of  one  another  without  conjunctive  particle,  because 
the  exhortations  are  coordinate,  and  what  he  says  to  show  the 
qualifications  for  the  one  and  the  obligation  to  the  other,  serve 
as  the  ground  for  such  coordinate  exhortations." 

Adopting,  then,  this  construction,  we  understand  the  Apostle 
to  continue  without  a  conjunction,  as  giving  an  exhortation  coor- 
dinate with  that  already  given  : 

Ver.  22  b.  Having  had  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  con- 
science, 23.  and  having  had  our  body  washed  with  pure  water,  let 
us  hold  fast  the  confession  of  our  hope  immovable,  for  he  is  faithful 
that  promised. 

We  notice  that  ver.  19  begins  with  a  participial  clause  prefa- 
tory to  a  hortatory  verb  in  the  first  person.  We  have  here  a 
similar  participial  clause,  similarly  related  in  its  position  to  a 
hortatory  verb.  This  itself  offers  the  presumption  that  it  is 
prefatory  like  the  other.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  all  that  is 
needed  to  confirm  us  in  so  construing  it,  is  to  find  that  it  expresses 
what  is  suitable  ground  for  the  thing  exhorted  by  the  verb. 
What  is  affirmed  in  our  participial  clauses  will  show  this  rela- 
tion. 

First  of  all,  the  perfect  participles,  having  been  sprinkled,  and 
having  been  washed,  express  actions  completed  in  the  past,  and 
done  once  for  all.  This  meaning  is  blurred  by  the  rendering  : 
"  having  our  hearts  sprinkled,  .  .  and  our  body  washed,"^  which 
admits  of  being  understood  to  mean  things  we  procure  to  be  done, 
and  so  procure  in  view  of  doing  what  we  are  exhorted  to  do 
(whether  that  be  "  drawing  near  "  or  "  holding  fast ").  We 
suppose  it  is  this  confused  notion  that  has  occasioned  these 
expressions  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  foregoing :  "  let  us 
draw  near,"  and  that  makes  it  difficult  to  do  justice  to  von  Hof- 
manu's  construction  that  connects  them  with :  let  us  hold  fast,  etc. 
This  blurred  sense  suggests  a  likeness  to  the  action  of  legal  wor- 

1  Vers.  1611,  1881. 


X.  22  h,  23.]      HAVING    HAD    OUR    BOPY    WASHED.  369 

shippers,  who,  as  often  as  they  would  draw  near  to  God,  would 
procure  qualifieatiou  by  sprinkling  and  washing.  And  so  the 
Apostle  is  understood  to  mean,  that  we  are  to  procure  qualifica- 
tion for  drawing  near  to  God  in  the  corresponding  Christian  way, 
and  only  true  way  ; '  and  the  only  contrast  intended  is  supposed 
to  be  in  the  means  employed.  But  close  attention  to  the  perfects 
yields  a  different  meaning.  The  contrast  is  not  in  the  means 
employed,  which  are  not  expressed,  but  in  the  completeness  of 
the  things  done,  w^hich  is  expressed  by  the  perfects.  The  con- 
trast, indeed,  is  not  now  expressed,  but  has  been  in  the  foregoing 
argument,  and  is  here  only  to  be  remembered,  while  the  expres- 
sions before  us,  only  represent  the  conclusion,  i.  e.,  the  ascertained 
truth,  which  is  now  assumed.  The  action  expressed  by  the  per- 
fects, then,  as  the  completed  transaction  of  the  past,  is  something 
that,  when  done,  had  the  effect  now  described.  That  was  Christ's 
finished  work  as  Priest.  When  He  did  that.  He  did  all  that  it 
is  the  priest's  part  to  do.  Thus,  we  have  read  the  Apostle  say- 
ing :  "  by  one  sacrifice  He  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are 
sanctified."  ^  But :  ''  perfected  "  comprehends  all  the  benefit  to 
be  had  from  priestly  mediation.  It  comprehends,  indeed,  all 
that  pertains  to  right  relation  with  God,  not  only  what  the 
priest  did,  but  what  the  worshipper  himself  did  when  drawing 
near  to  God.  It  comprehended  both  the  sprinklings  with  blood, 
and  the  washings  with  water.  Therefore,  to  say  :  "  by  one  sac- 
rifice He  hath  perfected,"  comprehends  the  notions,  by  one  sac- 
rifice He  hath  sprinkled,  and  hath  washed  them  that  are  sancti- 
fied. In  our  perfects,  then,  the  Apostle  expresses  an  effect  of 
Christ's  priestly  work,  such  as  would  be  expressed  did  he  say, 
with  evident  reference  to  ver.  14  :  having  been  perfected. 

The  Apostle,  however,  says  first :  having  been  sprinkled  as  to 
our  hearts  from  an  evil  conscience.  Sprinkling  is  in  order  to 
cleansing,  and  the  expression  before  us  means  :  having  had  our 
hearts  cleansed  in  the  way  that  sacrificial  blood  does  this.  The 
resemblance  of  this  expression  to  ix.  11,^  requires  us  to  under- 
stand the  same  thing  to  be  meant  here  that  is  meant  there,  excej)t 
that  an  evil  conscience,  is  morecomprehensiv'c  of  all  that  burdens 

'Comp.,  e.  (J.,  Stuart.     '^Coini).  on  ver.  14  above.      '  Conip.  ad  loc. 

24 


370  LET   us    HOLD    FAST    THE    CONFESSION      [x.  22  6,  23. 

the  heart  with  guih,  than  is  the  expression  :  "  conscience  of  dead 
works."  Here,  as  there,  the  reference  is  to  the  consciousness  of 
evil  that  must  be  removed  by  sacrifice  and  priestly  mediation. 
The  legal  spirit,  that  the  Apostle  has  refuted  and  rebuked,  moved 
his  readers  to  seek  cleansing  by  legal  sacrifices  continually 
renewed.  He  now  reminds  them  that  they  have  been  cleansed 
once  for  all.  He  adds  :  and  having  been  washed  with  pure  water. 
Whatever  interpretation  is  put  on  the  foregoing  expression 
involves  also  the  present  one.  If  that,  as  we  suppose,  reflects 
the  disposition  of  the  readers  to  resort  to  legal  cleansing  by  blood- 
sprinkling,  reminding  them  that  they  have  been  cleansed  once 
for  all,  then  the  present  expression  reflects  the  disposition  to  resort 
to  legal  washings,*  reminding  them  that  they  have  been  washed 
once  for  all ;  for  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  that  perfected  forever, 
accomplished  that  also.  And  so  the  Apostle  says  :  pure  water, 
not  as  meaning  actual  water.  For  then  pure  must  mean  actually 
clean  water.  But  he  means  what  does  really  make  pure,^  as 
Christ  said  :  "  I  am  the  true  bread."  ^  And  such,  we  suppose, 
is  the  reference  here.  The  propriety  of  mentioning  here  the 
washing  of  the  body  with  water,  has,  indeed,  no  other  natural 
explanation,  than  the  reference  to  the  context  at  ix.  9-14,  where, 
in  ver.  10,  "divers  washings,"  (iSanTcff/KHg)  are  mentioned  among 
the  ordinances  of  the  flesh  imposed  till  the  time  of  rectification, 
when  Christ  procured  an  everlasting  deliverance  from  them.* 
With  such  a  reference,  the  present  mention  is  natural,  and 
reproduces  a  previously  established  truth,  as  does  the  foregoing 
expression.  Without  such  a  reference,  the  mention  of  washing 
the  body  introduces  something  corresponding  to  nothing  that  has 
been  discoursed  on,  and  consequently  expositors,  seeing  no  such 
reference,  have  little  agreement  about  what  is  meant.  Some 
understand  the  Apostle  to  refer  directly  to  Christian  Baptism,^ 
supposing  that  the  mention  of  the  body  requires  that,  and  ren- 
ders inadmissible  the  view  of  others,^  that  this,  as  well  as  the 

>  Comp.  Lev.  xiv.  8,  9  ;  xv.  5,  6,  7,  8,  10,  11,  etc.     Comp.  Angus. 

*  Comp.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.  ^  Comp.  John  vi.  32. 

*  Comp.  above  on  ix.  12.  ^  Bleek,  Del.,  Alford,  Lun.,  von  Hof. 

*  e.  g.,  Calvin. 


X.  22  b,  23.]  OF  THE  hope  immovable.  371 

foregoing  expression,  has  only  a  sj)iritual  meaning,  the  present 
one  to  be  taken  as  parallel  with  the  language  of  Ezek.  xxxvi. 
25.  Not  to  adduce  other  views,  we  agree  with  those  that  think, 
that  the  mention  of  the  body  requires  us  to  understand  a  purify- 
ing that  concerns  the  body.  But  we  see  no  reason  for  under- 
standing the  reference  to  be  to  Baptism ;  especially  when  it  is 
evident  that  the  language  of  vers.  19-23  a  is  meant  to  reproduce 
in  brief,  with  a  view  to  exhortation,  elements  in  the  foregoing 
argument ;  and  among  those  we  find  a  satisfactory  reference  as 
just  explained.  What  is  done  in  baptism  concerns  inward 
cleansing  as  much  as  the  purifying  of  the  body.  Our  conjoined 
expressions  :  having  been  sprinkled,  etc.,  and  having  been  washed 
evidently  express  what  is  signified  by  Baptism.  But  for  that 
reason  we  may  not  take  the  second  to  refer  to  Baptism  and  the 
first  not.  One  does  not  need  to  be  thinking  of  Baptism  when 
he  designates  the  things  that  Baptism  signifies.  Moreover,  "  it  is 
inconsistent  with  sound  interpretation  to  make  one  rite  the  anti- 
type of  another."*  A  purified  body  is  one  of  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  priestly  mediation,^  and  is  included  in  that  effect  that 
has  been  described  ver.  10 :  "we  are  sanctified  by  the  offer- 
ing of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all."  By  that,  it 
is  possible  to  do  as  the  Apostle  exhorts  xiii.  15:  "Let  us 
offer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continually,  that  is  the 
fruit  of  the  lips  which  make  confession  to  His  name."  * 

The  notions  expressed  by  :  having  been  sprinkled,  etc.,  and 
having  been  washed,  are  obviously  a  fitting  preface  to  the  exhor- 
tation :  let  us  hold  fast  the  confession  of  the  hope  immovable.  The 
Apostle  has  said,  "  we  are  the  house  of  God  if  wc  hold  steadfast 
to  the  end  the  boldness  and  boast  of  the  hope."  *  Not  that  we 
are  thus  made  the  house  of  God  ;  that  is  done  by  the  mediation 
of  "  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  confession  ;  -^  but  perse- 
vering boldness  is  the  evidence  that  we  are  that  house  of  God. 
Now  in  the  expressions  :  having  been  sprinkled,  etc.,  and  having 
been  washed,  etc.,  the  Apostle  expresses  that  cfiect  of  Christ's 
priestly  mediation  that  qualifies  us  to  belong  to  the  house  of  God, 

'Angus.  '  Comp.  1  Thess.v.  23.  '  Conip.  1  Cor.  vi.  11. 

♦iii.  5.  'iii.  1. 


372  LET   us   CONSIDER   ONE   ANOTHER.  [x.  24,  25. 

the  same,  therefore,  is  the  fitting  ground  for  exhorting  us  to  do 
that  which  is  the  proof  of  our  belonging  to  that  house  of  God, 
over  which,  says  our  context,  Jesus  is  a  Great  Priest.  What  is 
expressed  here  in  exhortation  is  the  same  as  is  expressed,  iii.  5 
conditionally.  The  hope  is  not  the  subjective  sentiment ;  and  we 
may  add  that  a  sentiment  or  emotion  is  not  a  thing  that  can  be 
confessed  without  change,^  but  something  that  fluctuates  under 
influences  irrespective  of  the  conviction  that  the  thing  to  hope  for 
remains.  The  hope  is  that  objective  thing  laid  up  in  heaven  as 
the  goal  of  the  believers  race.^  The  confession  ^  of  the  hope  is 
the  confession  whose  substance  or  contents  is  that  thing  Chris- 
tians have  in  prospect  and  that  is  express  matter  of  promise.  As 
something  confessed,  it  could  be  held  immovable  in  the  sense  that 
they  would  hold  the  belief  that  what  they  hoped  for  was  certainly 
and  unchangeably  in  prospect  for  them.  The  ground  for  this 
constancy  is  the  character  of  Him  that  promised,  whose  promise 
gives  substance  to  the  hope ;  and  so  the  Apostle  adds  :  For  faith- 
ful is  he  that  promised. 

As  we  have  noted  that  the  thought  expressed  here  in  exhorta- 
tion is  substantially  the  same  as  that  expressed  conditionally  at 
iii.  6.  so  we  must  note  that  in  both  instances  the  subsequent  con- 
text presents  substantially  the  same  .  sentiments.  At  iii.  7— 19 
they  are  couched  in  the  form  of  warning.  Here  they  are 
expressed  in  the  form  of  exhortation. 

Ver.  24.  And  let  us  consider  one  another  for  provocation  of  love 
and  of  good  works  ;  25.  not  forsaking  our  own  meeting,  as  is  the 
custom  of  some,  but  exhorting  and  so  much  the  more  as  ye  see  the 
day  approaching. 

,  The  present  hortatory  verb :  let  us  consider  has  no  preface 
like  the  two  that  precede,  because  it  is  not,  like  them,  something 
'  that  must  be  grounded  on  the  truths  established  in  the  extended 
)  argument  preceding  ver.  19.  It  is  the  proper  sequence  of  that 
condition  when  one  draws  near  to  God  in  the  fullness  of  faith 
and  maintains  unwavering  the  confession  of  the  hope.  The 
Apostle  says :  let  us  consider  one  another.  At  iii.  1  he  has  said : 
"  holy  brethren,  partakers  of  a  heavenly  calling  consider  (ye)  the 

^  von  Hof.  *  xii.  1.  '  comp.  iii.  1 ;  iv.  14. 


X.  24,  25.]     KELATioN  OF  X.  19-39  TO  CHAP.  III.  373 

Apostlo  and  High  priest  of  our  confession."  We  have  postponed 
to  this  point  noticing  the  fact  that,  at  ver.  19,  the  Apostle  begins, 
the  hortatory  sequel' of  his  foregoing  argument  addressing  his 
readers  as :  brethren.  This  is  because  we  are  now  better  pre- 
paral  to  observe  some  significant  coincidences  of  the  discourse 
at  iii.  1  sqq.  and  here.  Since  iii.  1,  12  the  Author  has  not 
addressed  his  readers  by  this  title.  But  now  he  resumes  it, 
though  without  the  adjective  "  holy."  This  is,  however,  only  to 
give  the  latter  more  ample  expression  in  the  clauses :  "  having 
been  sprinkled,"  etc.,  "  and  having  been  washed,"  etc.  ]\Iore- 
over  the  lantruage :  "  having  boldness  for  the  entrance  of  the 
holies,"  is  a  more  definite  expression  for  the  notion  :  "  heavenly 
calling."  And,  "  Jesus  as  having  dedicated  the  new  and  living 
way,  and  now  our  Great  Priest  over  the  house  of  God,"  appears 
as  He  must  appear  when,  with  such  instruction  as  the  Apostle 
gives,  we  have  "  considered  Jesus,  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest 
of  our  confession."  These  coincidences  of  thought,  taken  with 
those  noted  above,  concerning  "  holding  fast  the  hope,"  and  the 
words  of  warning  iii.  7  sqq.,  are  plain  indications  of  the  Author's 
own  division  of  his  discourse.  At  iii.  1,  after  the  representation 
of  ii.  17,  he  formally  presents  the  subject  which  he  has  now  pur- 
sued to  its  completion  in  ver.  18,  though  with  various  interruptions. 
Now,  in  our  passage,  vers.  19-25,  he  resumes  the  direct  horta- 
tory address  to  his  readers,  having  achieved  what  was  proposed 
in  the  words :  "  consider  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  cnir 
confession,  Jesus.  He  resumes  with  the  address  brethren,  to 
advance  to  what  is  next  needful.  Now  he  does  not,  as  at  iii.  1, 
propose  the  confession,  of  which  Jesus  as  High  Priest  is  the  con- 
tents, but  the  confession  of  which  the  hope  is  the  contents.  And 
now  it  is  not  Jesus  whom  we  are  exhorted  to  consider,  but  one 
a^nother.  And  consequently,  a^  we  shall  observe,  the  hope,  and 
faith  that  is  the  certifying  or  certainty  of  the  hojx},  and  the  con- 
cern we  must  have  for  one  another,  become  the  subject  of  dis- 
course for  the  rest  of  the  epistle. 

( )iir  vcisc  s  oivc  exhortation,  first  in  a  positive,  and  then  in  a 
negative  form,  and  reflect  the  religious  situation  that  calls  for 
exhortation  ;  ver.  24   reflecting  what  was  not  doing  among  the 


374  NOT   FORSAKING   OUR   OWN   MEETING.      [x.  24,  25. 

readers,  and  ver.  25  reflecting  what  was  going  on.     The  double 
admonition  of  vers.  19-23,  resuming,  as  it  does,  the  extended 
foregoing  argument,  reflects  the  cause  of  what  was  going  on,  viz., 
a  defective  confession  of  Jesus,  in  which  His  high-priestly  quality- 
was  obscured,  if  not  ignored.     The  confession  of  Jesus  being 
now  corrected,  let  the  proper  sequel  appear  in  the  matter  of  fel- 
lowship.    Let  us    consider  one  another  well   {y.aTavuuifiev)^  for 
provocation  of  love  and  of  good  works.     This  does  not  mean  what 
would  be  most  naturally  understood  by  the  rendering  :  "  to  pro- 
voke unto  love,^  viz.,  stimulating  one  another  to  love,  etc.     The 
word  rendered  provocation  (napo^uff/jjk)  is  the  same  that  occurs 
Acts  XV.  39,^  where  it  is  rendered  "  contention,"  and  where  we 
are  told  how  Paul  and  Barnabas  parted  company  on  account  of 
their  reciprocal  provocation.     The  provocation  is  that  which  one 
feels  himself  when  considering  well  another,*  not  what  he  occa- 
sions in  another.*     The  word  is  commonly  used  in  a  bad  sense, 
but  receives  a  good  meaning  here  by  a  turn  of  expression  like 
that  which  says  :  "  owe  no  man  anything  but  to  love  one  another.® 
The  readers  had  not  been  experiencing  provocation  in  this  salu- 
tary way,  but  rather  provocation   to  enmity  and  division  ;  in 
what  fashion,  is  reflected  in  the  negative  clause  that  follows. 
The  assembly  {rr^v  intffuvaywyrj,)  meaus,  not  the  act  of  assembling, 
but  the  meeting  itself,  as  we  say :  our  meeting.     But  the  Apostle 
says  here  :  our  own  meeting  (f  aoroiv),  which  may  have  an  empha- 
sis, like  that  of  our  English  idiom,  implying  another  meeting 
for  which  our  own  may  be  forsaken.^     The  meeting  so  referred 
to  is  not  some  locally  definite  one,  but  the  Cliristian  congregation 
for  worship  and  edification,  that  is  the  universal  representation 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  wherever  believers  exist.     That  there 
was  reason  for  the  present  admonition  is  expressed  in  the  words : 
as  the  custom  of  some  is.     In  antithesis  to  the  "  forsaking,"  the 
Apostle  adds  :  hut  exhorting.     He  leaves  the  object  unexpressed. 
In  any  similar  participial  sentence  like  ours  :  not  forsaking  .  .  . 
but  exhorting,  the  expressed  object  after  the  first  participle  would 

1  Comp.  at  iii.  1.  "  Versions  of  1611,  1881. 

3  Comp.  Deut.  xxix.  28,  in  LXX.  *  So  von  Hof. 

*  Against  Del.,  Angus.       *  Kom.  xiii.  8.       ''  With  Liin.,  against  von  Hof. 


X.  24,  25.]     EXHORT,    FOR  THE   DAY   APPROACHES.  375 

be  understood  to  be  the  object  of  the  second.  And  we  may  so 
take  it  here,'  and  not  supply  :  **  one  another,"  ^  if  we  correctly 
apprehend  the  kind  of  exhortation  and  the  aim  of  it,  that  the 
Apostle  has  in  mind.  He  does  not  mean  exhortation  to  faithful 
attendance  on  meetings  for  worship,^  nor  to  love  and  good  works.* 
These  would  be  exhortations  to  be  directed  to  individuals ;  and 
with  this  notion  of  the  kind  of  exiiortation  intended,  it  is  natural 
to  supply  :  "  one  another."  The  diaractcr  of  the  exhortation  is 
indicated  by  the  words  that  follow  :  and  so  much  the  more  as  ye 
see  the  day  approaching.  It  is  the  thing  here  referred  to  that 
must  be  the  motive  and  the  topic  of  exhortation.  Whatever  it 
may  be,  the  advent  of  Christ,  the  end  of  the  world,  or  the  crisis 
of  the  Jewish  nation  and  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  with 
that,  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  and  abrogation  of  its  wor- 
ship, the  exhortation  prompted  by  that  must  be  exhortation  to  the 
meeting  of  Christian  believers  as  a  unit.  The  Apostle  says: 
ye  see,  whereas  from  ver.  19  the  discourse  has  run  in  the  first 
person  plural.  The  motive  for  this  change  may  escape  detection. 
But  it  may  be  to  enhance  the  significance  of  what  is  remarked, 
as  the  Author  can  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  his  readers  for  the 
truth  of  it.' 

As  to  the  day  *  the  Apostle  means,  it  seems  to  us  evident,  that 
it  is  the  crisis  of  national  rejection  that  was  impending  for  the 
Jews  that  rejected  Christ,^  and  not  the  second  coming  of  Christ 
to  judgment.®  At  the  period  of  this  writing  the  signs  of  the 
ajiproach  of  what  Christ  predicted  must  have  been  plain  to 
believers,  and  more  especially  to  Jewish  believers.  And  the 
nearer  they  were  to  the  scene  of  action,  viz.,  Jerusalem,  the  more 
those  signs  would  impress  them.  It  may  even  be  this  fact  that 
influenced  the  Author  to  write  :  ye  see,  instead  of:  we  see.  At 
iii.  12,  13,  the  Apostle  has  said:  "Take  heed,  brethren,  lest 
haply  there  shall  be  in  any  one  of  you  an  evil  heart  of  perfidy 
when  there  is  a  falling  away  from  the  living  God ;  but  exhort 

'  With  von  Ilof.       "  Lun.,  Alford,  Vers,  fill,  1881.      »  As  Liin.,  Lindsay. 
*  As  Davidson.  *  So  Liin. 

•Comp.  Luke  xxi.  22;  D:in.  ix.  2G,  27  ;  .Joel  ii.  1,  11,  31  ;  Mai.  ii.  12. 
^  So  Lindsay,  Ebrard,  Baumgarten.     *  As  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Liin.,  Alford,  Calvin. 


376  FOE   IP   WE   WILLINGLY   SIN,  [x.  26,  27. 

one  another  day  by  day,  so  long  as  it  is  called  \out]  To-day,  in 
order  that  no  one  of  you  may  be  hardened  by  the  deceit  of  sin." 
"  The  day  "  meant  in  our  verse  is  the  period  when  *'  the  falling 
away  "  shall  take  place  as  a  definite  historical  event.  It  is,  for 
those  concerned,  the  end  of  what  is  designated  as  "  To-day,"  and 
of  hearing  "  To-day  "  called  out  to  them.  The  nature  of  the 
exhortation  that  is  prompted  by  the  signs  of  the  day  approaching, 
must  be  the  same  as  that  inspired  by  the  thought  that  the  call : 
"  To-day  "  still  sounds ;  and  its  aim  must  be  to  prevent  the  hard- 
ening of  hearts,  and  to  move  all  to  "  escape  "  ^  from  the  calamity 
that  must  be,  and  will  soon  be  the  consequence  of  such  hardening. 
An  example  of  such  exhortation  is  Peter  in  Acts  ii.  40 :  "  He 
exhorted  them,  saying,  save  yourselves  from  this  crooked  genera- 
tion." ^  Such  is  the  consistency  of  the  Author  with  his  own  dis- 
course, that  appears,  when  we  understand :  the  day  to  refer  to  the 
approaching  calamity  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Beside  these  sufficient 
grounds  for  so  interpreting  his  meaning,  we  have  the  consider- 
ations that  are  represented  in  the  extended  note  at  ii.  3,  above. 
The  words  that  now  follow  corroborate  this  interpretation,  as 
we  observe  that  they  fit  with  exactness  the  representations  just 
made  as  we  understand  them.  The  approaching  day  must  concern 
the  readers  and  fill  them  with  alarm,  if  they  are  in  danger  of 
being  involved  in  its  calamities.     There  is  that  danger. 

Ver.  26.  For  if  we  willingly  sin  after  having  received  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins, 
27.  but  some  fearful  reception  of  judgment  and  fervour  of  fire 
a-coming  to  devour  the  adversaries. 

It  is  commonly  thought  that  the  present  passage  has  its  closest 
parallel  with  vi.  4  sqq.,^  but  its  real  parallel  is  with  ii.  1-3.  It 
is  in  fact,  the  same  thought  as  there,  but  now  expressed  as  the 
subsequent  progress  of  the  Apostle's  discourse  demands.  The 
unlikeness  to  vi.  4  sqq.  appears  in  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  uses 
the  first  person  plural,  instead  of,  as  there,  the  third  person 
plural,  where  he  describes  persons  and  sins  with  which  he  does 
not  identify  himself,  even  hypothetically.  The  likeness  to  ii. 
1-3  appears  in  the  use  here,  as  there,  of  the  first  person  plural, 

'  Ck)mp.  above  on  ii.  3.       ^  Comp.  Dent,  xxxii.  5.        '  Del.,  Liin.,  Alford. 


X,  26,  27.]  HAVING   RECEIVED   THE  TRUTH,  377 

and  in  the  ai)pcal  (vers.  28,  29),  to  tlie  law  of  Moses  and  the 
recompense  visited  on  him  that  nullifies  it,  as  showing  what  is 
left  for  one  who  turned  from  the  salvation  offered  through  Christ. 
In  ii.  3  the  iuquir}^  is :  How  shall  we  escape  the  inevitable  rec- 
ompense of  the  law  given  by  angels  if  we  neglect  so  great  salva- 
tion from  it  ?  Now,  however,  the  Apostle  has  fully  displayed  the 
completeness  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour.  By  the  truth  he  means  all 
this  sum  of  saving  knowledge  that  he  has  represented.  He 
means  this  particularly,  while  he  uses  the  Christian  word  that 
comprehends  all  revealed  Christian  doctrine  of  salvation.^  He 
says  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  and  by  k-iy.'uxn';  as  distinguished 
from  the  less  forcible  Y'^u)ai<;,  is  meant  the  knowledge  of  a  definite 
and  actual  thing.^  As  such  he  has  communicated  the  truth,  and 
now  his  readers  have  received  it.  This  makes  the  difference  be- 
tween the  present  point  and  ii.  1-3,  in  recurring  to  the  same 
thought.  Here,  as  there,  he  comprehends  himself  with  his 
readers :  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  But 
here,  instead  of :  "  having  neglected,"  he  says  :  If  we  sin  willingly. 
By  this  is  not  meant  any  sort  of  transgression,  but  sin  in  the 
universal  way,^  with  reference  to  the  truth  m  hicli  is  mentioned 
universally.  It  is  sin  that  rejects  the  whole  truth,  and  not  merely 
a  part  of  it,  and  treats  it  as  if  it  were  not  the  truth. 

It  is  affirmed,*  that :  having  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth  describes  a  really  converted  person,  and  that  "  this  cardinal 
point  must  be  kept  in  mind,  or  else  ver.  29  becomes  unintelli- 
gible." ®  Leaving  it  till  we  come  to  ver.  29,  to  show  that  this  is 
a  misrepresentation  as  regards  that,  let  us  examine  how  true  it 
is  with  respect  to  the  language  before  us.  The  above  affirmation 
cannot  be  justified  on  the  sole  ground,  that  k-iy^toffiq  comprehends 
such  a  meaning  and  admits  of  no  other.  We  observe,  indeed,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  that  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament, 
except  perhaps  2  Peter  ii.  21,  consists  with  that  interpretation. 
But  what  is  decisive  in  the  present  ca.se,  is  that  the  Apostle  uses 
the  first  person  plural.  He  means  such  as  have  receiveil  the 
truth  as  he  has  himself.     As  regards  the  question  :  may  one  that 

'  2  Thess.  ii.  10,  12  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  2o  ;  2  John  3.  '  Del.,  Alford. 

^  Calvin.  *  Del.,  Alford,  etc.  ^  Alford. 


378  NO   MORE   SACRIFICE   REMAINS.  [x.  26,  27. 

has  been  converted  reject  Christ  and  be  lost,  concerning  which  it 
is  common  to  appeal  to  our  passage  (vers.  26-29),  our  present 
vers.  26,  27,  offer  nothing  more  than  does  ii.  3,  where  the  Apostle 
says  :  "  How  shall  ice  escape  having  neglected  so  great  salvation." 
The  present  representation,  like  ii.  3,  is  hypothetical,  and  is  not 
meant  to  express  directly  or  indirectly  that  the  sin  ever  is  com- 
mitted by  the  character  described.     It  is  introduced  to  enhance 
the  force  of  what  u  affirmed  in  the  connection.     Here  it  is  the 
declaration  :  there  remains  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins.     In  ii.  3,  it 
is  to  imply  that  there  is  no  other  way  of  escape  than  the  great  sal- 
vation.    At  ii.  3,  we  have  seen  that  the  Apostle  does  not  repre- 
sent, that  there  is  no  escape  because  the  sin  of  neglecting  so  great 
salvation  is  so  great,  and  unpardonable,  but  simply  that  he  and 
his  readers  will  not  escape  the  certain  penalty  of  having  trans- 
gressed the  law,  if  they  neglect  the  only  salvation,  and  that  so 
great.     So  here,  he  does  not  represent  the  sinning  as  calling 
attention  to  its  heinousness,  and  then  say  that  there  remains  no 
more  sacrifice  for  such   sin,  as  if  there  did  remain  sacrifice  for 
other  sins.^ ' EyMuaiw^  d,aa/>-raw;>ra>i'  =  sinning  willingly,  does  not  ex- 
press heinous  sin,  albeit  the  sin  referred  to  would  be  heinous  and 
even  apostasy.     The  Apostle  uses  dixaprfhw  in  that  sense  that 
was  perfectly  familiar  to  Jewish  Christians,  as  the  word  used  in 
the  LXX.  to  translate  >?on.     This  word  "  marks  sin  as  mistaken 
action  ;  there  is  plainly,  however,  a  reference  to  the  goal  fixed  by 
God — human  action  is  described  as  missing  its  destination,  and 
thus  failing  to  fulfil  the  word  of  God."  ^     The  Apostle,  therefore, 
does  not  mean  single  sins,  or  sins  of  just  any  sort ;  nor  does  he  mean 
apostasy  from  Christ,  as  if  using  a  synonym  for  Tzapaizz^ovraa  vi. 
6.^     He  means  persistently  pursuing  {^a.iJ.apra-^<r^T(uv  present  parti- 
ciple), a  way  divergent  from  and  in  disregard  of  the  truth.     And 
because  the  truth  is  known,  it  is  therefore  voluntary  conduct.* 
As  in  1  Peter  v.  2,  elders  are  exhorted  to  "  exercise  oversight,  not 
by  constraint,  but  willingly  "  {ixouaiuxi),  so  the  sinning  referred 

'  Against  Calvin,  Del.,  Alford. 

2  Cremer,  Lex.  1st  ed.  s.  v.  dfiapr.  comp.  Exod.  xxxi.  30,  31,  33 ;  Num.  xiv. 
40;  xxi.  7  ;  xxii.  34.  ^  Against  Del. 

*  So  von  Hof. ;  for  conduct  of  a  different  sort  comp.  1  Tim.  i.  13. 


X.  26,  27.]  DREADFUL  JUDGMENT   COMING.  379 

to  here,  is  failing  to  fulfill  the  known  will  of  God  and  missing  the 
divine  destination,  not  by  any  cunstraint  of  ignorance,  or  other- 
wise, but  willingly,  because  one  chooses  another  way.  It  is  ob- 
vious how  exactly  this  interjiretation  fits  the  general  tenor  of  the 
Author's  discourse.  If  we  sin  willingly,  so  understood,  is  just 
what  the  Apostle  may  say  including  himself  in  the  supposed 
case,  in  order  to  make  the  plainer  what  he  w^ould  affirm.  The 
expression  is  conditional,  and  represents  a  situation  of  M'hich  he 
affirms  :  there  remains  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins.  What  is  thus 
affirmed  is  a  universal  proposition,  reiterating  comprehensively 
the  negative  aspect  of  the  truth  now  known  from  the  extended 
instructions  preceding  ver.  19.  The  legal  sacrifices  have  been 
shown  to  be  no  sacrifices  that  take  away  sin.  The  sacrifice  of 
Christ  does  take  away  sin  forever  (ver.  14).  The  concluding 
statement  of  the  instruction  is  :  "  Now  where  there  is  remission 
of  these,  there  is  no  more  offering  for  sins  "  (ver.  18).  Christ's 
sacrifice  was  "  once  for  all,"  and  there  is  and  will  be  no  other. 
If  one  turns  from  that,  he  has  no  other  to  look  for.  It  is  there- 
fore, as  we  have  said,  a  mistake  to  understand  ^  the  present  state- 
ment to  mean,  that  the  sin  referred  to  is  too  heinous  to  be  forgiven 
or  to  let  repentance  be  possible.  It  is  also  a  mistake  to  suppose  ^ 
that  it  expresses,  that  there  is  no  sacrifice  remaining  for  that  sin 
which  one  commits  who  turns  from  availing  himself  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ.  This  is  true  ;  but  true  as  comprehended  in  the 
universal  situation  described.  The  Apostle  says  :  Sins.  There 
is  no  sacrifice  left  for  any  sins.  The  Apostle  expresses  in  the 
antitheses  ('</)  what  is  left.  It  is  some  dreadful  reception  of 
judgment  and  zeal  of  fire  a-coming  to  devour  the  opposers.  Most 
expositors  take  the  tjV  as  belonging  to  ifafiepd,^  which  must  then 
mean  that  the  quality  of  dreadfulness  is  in  an  undetermined 
measure,  im})lying  a  very  great  degree.  But  as  the  emphasis  is  on 
ix'loyrj,  the-  force  of  the  rtV  attaches  rather  to  that,  to  enhance 
the  notion  thus  expressed  by  its  indefinitencss.^ 

There  seems  the  more  reason  for  this  when  we  render  ixl^oyTJ  — 
reception,  and  not,  as  is  usually  done,  "  expectation."     The  latter 

'  As  Del.,  Alford,  Davidson.  '  As  von  Hof. 

'  e.  g.,  Alford,  Liin.  *  So  von  Ilof.,  comp.  Winer,  Gram.,  p.  170. 


380  OPPOSERS   TO   BE   CONSUMED.  [x.  26,  27. 

misleads  one  to  understand  that  a  subjective  emotion  of  inward 
dread  is  here  referred  to,  and  thus  to  ascribe  an  emphasis  to 
^afitpd  that  is  not  intended.  We  are  indebted  to  Alford  for  the 
correction  of  this  rendering,  which  he  fully  substantiates.  The 
wonder  is  that  it  has  so  universally  prevailed.  The  simple  fact 
seems  to  be  just  as  he  states  it :  lx8o-/7j  means  "  reception,"  and  is 
nowhere  supposed  to  mean  "  expectation,"  except  in  this  place. 
In  the  New  Testament  Lexicons  ^  the  latter  meaning  is  given  for 
the  present  text  only,  without  any  support,  and  is  simply  trans- 
ferred from  the  commentaries.  We  may  suppose  it  has  been 
occasioned  by  the  proximity  of  i:xdsy6ij.£v<i^  ver.  13,  which,  as 
noted  there,  is  usually,  though  incorrectly,  rendered  :  expecting. 
Seeing  then  reception,  and  not  "  expectation,"  is  the  correct  ren- 
dering, it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  as  is  commonly  done,^  that  the 
Apostle  expresses  or  intimates  the  torment  of  an  evil  conscience 
that  those  suffer  who  have  turned  from  Christ  after  having  known 
him,  and  that  they  are  left  a  prey  to  dread  apprehension.  He  does 
not  point  to  what  will  be  expected,  but  to  what  will  be  left  for 
such  a  situation  as  is  supposed,  whether  expected  or  not ;  more 
likely,  we  may  add,  not  expected  by  those  concerned,  than  ex- 
pected. It  is  the  reception  itself  that  is  in  prospect,  of  a  dread- 
ful judgment  and  zeal  of  fire,  which  expression  we  may  leave 
without  comment  in  the  dread-inspiring  indefiniteness  denoted 
by  the  adjunct :  some  (ri?),  and  give  our  attention  to  what  is 
made  definite  by  the  following  words.  The  judgment  is  one  that 
is  a-coming  (fj-iUovro?).  It  is  evident  that  this  refers  to  the  same 
thing  to  which  "  the  day  approaching "  (ver.  25)  refers.  The 
first  impression  is,  that  the  Apostle  means  something  soon  to 
happen ;  and  there  is  no  reason  for  modifying  this  impression. 
He  refers  to  the  approaching  calamity  that  signalized  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  chosen  nation.  Every  expression  in  the  language  be- 
fore us  leads  to  this  interpretation.  In  harmony  with  the  terms 
that  describe  the  judgment,  we  read  that  it  is  coming  to  devour 
those  that  are  its  objects.  These  are  designated  as  :  the  opposers 
or  adversaries. 

It  is  easy  to  mistake  the  term  :  the  opposers  as  if  it  were  only 
*  See  Grimm.  Lex.  sub  voce.  '  See,  e.  y.,  Calvin. 


X.  26,  27.]  DEUTEKONOMY   xxxu.  381 

another  designation  for  those  dcscrihetl  ver.  26  as  "  sinning  will- 
ingly." But  the  mistake  reveals  itself  if  we  read :  "  For  if  we 
willingly  sin,  there  remains  (only)  a  fearful  judgment  a-coming 
to  devour  the  adversaries."  The  ehange  from  the  first  i)erson 
plural  to  the  third  person  plural  is  not  an  inadvertence,  nor  is  it 
grammatically  allowable  to  suppose  that  our  Author,  with  his 
superior  Greek,  would  drop  into  the  exchange  of  persons  so  com- 
mon in  Hebrew  syntax,  while  meaning  the  same  thing.  The 
difference  of  person  means  different  things.  The  adversaries  de- 
fines the  judgment  that  is  referred  to.  It  is  a  well-known  judg- 
ment, as  a  predicted  thing,  that  is  coming  on  the  opposers  who 
are  a  class  well  known.  Thus  Jesus  defines  the  punishment  of 
those  on  the  left  hand  as :  "  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels."  ^  The  word,  uTzs'^d^rto'^,  that  occurs  again  only 
Col.  ii.  14,  expresses  something  that  by  its  very  nature  is  origin- 
ally and  inveterately  contrary,  and  is  a  fitting  designation  for  the 
Jews  that  rejected  their  Messiah,  but  not  for  those  described 
hypothetically  as  "  willingly  sinning."  What  the  Apostle  affirms 
in  our  verse  of  those  described  in  ver.  26,  is  that  there  is  nothing 
left  for  them  but  to  receive  aloriff  with  those  to  whom  it  is  a-coming, 
the  dreadful  judgment. 

In  this  representation  of  the  judgment  a-coming  the  Apostle 
reflects  the  language  of  Deut.  xxxii.  22.  "  For  a  fire  is  kindled 
in  mine  anger  and  shall  burn  unto  the  lowest  hell."  We  suppose 
he  has  in  mind  that  and  the  whole  passage  vers.  15-34,  from  the 
fact  that,  in  the  ver.  30,  he  quotes  the  vers.  35,  36  of  that  passage. 
In  Rom.  X.  19;  xi.  11  he  quotes  ver  21  of  the  same  passage 
when  treating  the  same  subject  viz.,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews. 
We  fail  to  observe  that  expositors  have  noticed  this  connection 
of  our  passage  with  Deut.  xxxii.  This  can  hardly  be  owing  to 
an  oversight,  seeing  that  every  one  notices  the  quotation  from  it 
in  our  verse  30.  But,  beside  the  general  spirit  of  Deut.  xxxii. 
15—36,  and  the  coincident^s  of  thought  and  actual  quotations 
already  mentioned,  there  are  verbal  coincidences  with  our  context 
that  support  the  view  we  present.  Thus  we  find  in  LXX.  Deut. 
xxxii.  17  our  unusual  word  nfioff^arov  ver.  20;   and  in  verses 

»Matt.  XXV.  41. 


382  CRIMINALITY   COMPARED.  [x.  28,  29. 

16,  19,  21  the  suggestion  of  our  unusual  word  Ttapo^uff/xo? ;  and 
in  verses  19,  21,  22  the  suggestion  our  Tzupda  ^Y}ko<;  ver.  27 ;  and 
in  ver.  22  xara^dysTai  for  our  eaftUiv  ver.  27 ;  and  in  verses  20, 
35  the  suggestion  for  our  rr^v  i^idpav  ver.  25. 

Ver  28.  Any  one  having  set  at  nought  a  law  of  Moses  dies 
without  compassion  on  [the  word  of]  two  or  three  witnesses.  29.  Of 
how  much  worse  punishment,  think  ye,  shall  he  be  judged  worthy, 
who  hath  trampled  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  accounted  com- 
mon the  blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  and 
treated  the  Spirit  of  grace  with  contempt  ? 

The  Apostle  presents  this  impressive  thought  without  express 
logical  connection  with  the  context  by  "  for  "  or  the  like.  But 
we  may  detect  the  progress  of  thought.  He  has  mentioned  "  the 
adversaries"  and  the  approaching  judgment  that  will  devour 
them.  He  has  described  that  judgment  with  vague  indefiniteness 
suggestive  of  its  terrible  measure.  The  language  before  us 
pauses  to  oifer  a  measure  of  what  is  to  be  anticipated. 

It  is  important  to  observe,  that  it  is  "the  opposers"  or 
"  adversaries  "  whose  case  he  presents,  and  not  the  character  rep- 
resented hypothetically  by :  "  If  we  sin  willingly."  This  is, 
indeed  obvious  to  one  who  concurs  in  the  interpretation  just 
given  under  ver.  27.  But  as  corroborative  of  that,  we  notice 
that  the  Apostle  still  maintains  the  third  person  when  mention- 
ing the  character  in  question,  while  addressing  his  readers  in  the 
second  person  plural.  In  contrast  with  this,  we  observe  at  ii.  3 
that  he  says :  "  how  shall  we  escape  having  neglected  "  (r.  e.,  if 
we  have  neglected)  so  great  salvation,  "  which  was  confirmed  unto 
Its."  This  leads  us  to  suppose,  that  if  the  Author  would  have 
put  it  to  his  readers,  what  thefy  must  expect  if  they  apostatized, 
he  would,  after  having  said  :  "  if  we  sin  willingly,"  continue 
with  the  words  :  "  of  how  much  worse  punishment  shall  we 
be  deemed  worthy  if  we  have  trampled  under  foot,"  etc.  This 
is,  however,  not  his  thought.  He  has  represented  the  situation 
where  one  has  turned  from  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  showing  that 
for  it  there  remains  nothing  but  to  share  the  fate  of  those  that  are 
the  adversaries  of  Christ.  He  now  adds  a  word  to  deepen  the 
impression  of  what  that  must  be,  in  order  to  put  them  on  their 


X.  28,  29.]  SETTING   AT   NOUGHT   MOSES.  383 

guard  against  the  (Icceitfulness  of  sin,  and  move  them  to  hold 
fast  to  the  end.^  We  have  here,  in  fact,  a  sample  of  the  sort  of 
exhortation  that  he  would  have  his  readers  use  in  their  meeting,^ 

The  Apostle  appeals  to  what  is  prescribed  in  the  laAV  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  Deut.  xvii.  2-7.  The  present  tense  does  not 
express  that  the  enactment  was  soon  to  be  carried  out  at  the 
period  of  this  writing.  It  is  the  same  use  of  the  present  of 
which  we  have  found  frequent  examples  in  our  Author,  viz., 
the  present  of  the  Scripture  record  that  he  has  before  him. 
What  he  designates  as:  "the  word  spoken  by  angels,"  ii.  1, 
he  calls  here :  Moses'  law,^  an  equally  true  and  more  com- 
mon designation.  But  we  suppose  it  is  for  the  purpose  of 
enhancing  the  antithesis  in  ver.  29,  when  he  mentions  Christ, 
whom,  for  the  same  reason,  he  calls  by  His  highest  title. 
Son  of  God.  The  mention  of:  two  or  three  witnesses,  may  be 
without  any  emphasis  as  brought  in  only  because  part  of  the 
case,  and  so  making  it  plain  that  the  reference  is  to  the  particu- 
lar case  in  Deut.  xvii.  2—7,  and  not  to  other  cases  to  which  the 
same  penalty  attached.  In  the  passage  named,  there  is  express 
requirement  that  there  shall  be  three,  or  at  least  two  witnesses. 
The  case  so  appealed  to  is  one  of  transgressing  God's  covenant  by 
idolatry.  The  Apostle  calls  it :  setting  at  nought  *  the  law  of 
Moses,  thus  expressing  the  sin  in  its  spirit  and  essence,  and 
thereby  adjusting  the  case  so  as  to  fit  the  corresponding  guilt 
under  the  conditions  of  the  New  Covenant.^ 

The  Apostle  reasons  a  minori  ad  majus.  We  observed  at  ii. 
3,  that  such  was  not  the  case.  There  the  earnest  question  is : 
"how  shall  we  escape ?"  which  implies  that  there  is  no  escape 
from  the  situation  supposed.  Here  the  question  is  :  of  how  much 
worse  punishment  shall  the  person  described  be  judged  worthy  ? 
viz.,  than  the  Old  Testament  criminal.  At  ii.  1-3  the  situation 
presented  is  one  of  general  transgression  under  the  law,  with 
only  the  prospect  due  retribution,  and  the  gospel  as  the  only  way 
of  escape.  Here  the  worst  form  of  transgressing  the  law,  with 
the  extreme  penalty,  is  taken,  to  represent  what  punishment  may 

'  iii.  13,  14.  '  Ver.  25.  '  Comp.  Luke  ii.  22. 

*  Comp.  Mark  vii.  9.  *  Comp.  von  Hof. 


384  DESPISING   THE   SON    OF    GOD,  [x.  28,  29. 

be  expected  for  those  who  not  merely  "  slip  by  "  the  opportunity, 
by  "  neglect,"  but  Avho  have  treated  the  Saviour  and  all  His 
benefits  with  indignity  and  contempt.  The  punishment  must  be 
worse  because  the  criminality  is  greater.  How  much  greater, 
appears  from  three  things  that  are  stated  as  true  in  the  case  pre- 
sented. The  criminality  is  so  expressed  by  participles  in  the 
aorist :  having  trampled,  having  accounted,  having  treated  with 
contempt.  This  is  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  future 
"judgment  a-coming"  when  the  crimes  shall  be  judged,  as 
expressed  by  the  future  a^tu}3ri<T era:} 

Having  trampled  under  foot  the  Son  of  God  expresses,  not  a 
studied  abuse  and  contempt ;  ^  but  treating  as  of  no  more  account 
than  the  dust  one  walks  on.^  The  enormity  of  the  conduct 
appears  from  what  is  so  treated,  the  Son  of  God,  and  especially 
when  considered  comparatively  with  the  case  of  setting  Moses  at 
nought.  It  does  not  relieve  the  case,  that  one  treats  the  Son  of 
God  as  nothing,  because  he  believes  He  is  nothing.  The  swine 
trample  pearls  under  their  feet  because  they  see  no  better  use  for 
them.  They  are  swine  for  their  doing,  and  will  be  dealt  with  as 
swine. 

Having  accounted  common  the  blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith 
he  was  sanctified.  By  accounted  common  is  not  expressed  a  loath- 
ing and  aversion  such  as  is  suggested  by  the  rendering  polluted, 
unholy.  It  means  common  in  the  sense  of :  "  not  holy."  * 
The  enormity  of  so  considering  the  blood  appears  from  what 
that  blood  is.  It  is  the  blood  of  the  covenant  ^  wherewith  he 
was  sanctified.  How  great  must  be  the  criminality  that  treats 
such  blood  as  if  it  were  no  more  than  any  other  blood !  It 
is  affirmed  ^  that  the  expression  :  wherewith  he  was  sanctified 
compels  us  to  understand  that  the  Apostle  describes  a  person 
that  has  had  "  an  inward  experience  of  a  former  sanctifica- 
tion  of  heart  and  life,"  i.  e.,  a  converted  and  regenerate  person. 
But  it  is  plain  from  1  Cor.  vii.  14  that  the  verb  riytdtr^'^rj 
cannot  of  itself  shut  us   up  to  that   understanding.     For   in 

^  von  Hof.  '  Against  Del.,  Alford. 

•''  von  Hof.;  comp.  Matt.  v.  13 ;  vii.  6.  *  Comp.  Acts  x.  14,  15. 

*  Comp.  ix.  20.  «  By  Del.,  Alford. 


X.  28,  29.]  AND  THE  BLOOD  OF  THE  COVENANT.         385 

the  place  referred  to,  the  Apostle  affirms  that :  "  the  unbe- 
lieviug  husband  has  beeu  sauctified  by  the  wife  "  {r^xiaazai  h  t9j 
yuva'.xt),  "aud  the  imbelieviug  wife  has  been  sauctified  by  the 
brother  (^y/'ia<Tzac  h  rut  u(h/.^-ut).  And  this  representation  admits 
of  the  indignant  exclamation  :  what  does  the  infidel  husband 
deserve  who  abuses  aud  dishonors  the  wife  by  whom  he  was 
sanctified  !  Moreover,  our  Author's  use  of  dytfU^oj,  so  far  from 
compelling  the  understanding  claimed  above,  plainly  gives  us  to 
understand  something  dill'erent.  We  have  learned '  that  he  rep- 
resents "  sanctifying  "  as  antecedent  to  "  perfecting."  Yet  "  per- 
fecting "  means  itself  no  more  than  that  gracious  state  of  the 
truly  regenerate  in  which  they  boldly  draw  near  to  God.  Of 
"  perfecting,"  however,  the  Apostle  teaches  ver.  14,  that :  "  by 
one  offering  He  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified." 
And  we  have  learned,  that  when  he  says :  Christ  "  has  perfected 
forever,"  he  means,  not  the  experience  of  that  benefit  by  believ- 
ers, but  Christ's  finished  work.  As  regards  Christ's  doing,  He 
perfected  believers  when  He  made  His  offering  once  for  all.  And 
in  this  sense  it  is  proper  to  say  of  the  offering  of  Christ,  to  all 
whom  it  concerns,  believing  or  not :  if  you  slight  this  way  of 
salvation  you  trample  under  foot  the  sacrifice  by  which  you  have 
been  perfected.  Moreover,  at  ver.  10,  the  Apostle  says,  in  the 
same  sense  :  "  we  have  been  sanctified  (fjyiafT;j.iv(n  i(T/j.i'J)  "  by  the 
offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for  all."  This  means, 
that  on  Christ's  part  all  was  done  that  sanctifies  us  when  His 
offering  was  made.  And  agreeably  to  that,  we  may  call  on 
believing  and  unbelieving  alike,  and  point  to  that  offering,  say- 
ing: behold  the  sacrifice  by  which  you  have  been  sanctified  !  It 
is  obvious  that  nothing  essential  is  changed  if  we  say :  behold  the 
blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith  you  have  been  sanctified-  It  is 
not  only  proper  to  say  this,  but  in  our  context,  where  we  have 
this  expression,  it  is  improper  to  understand  it  in  any  other 
sense.  For  that  only  is  the  sense  in  which  the  sanctifying  effi- 
cacy of  Christ's  sacrifice  and  blood  has  been  set  forth  in  the 
extended  argument  from  which  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  the 
exhortation  and  warning  of  which  our  text  forms  a  part.     The 

'  See  above  after  ver.  14. 

25 


386  CONTEMNING   THE  SPIRIT   OF   GRACE,      [x.  28,  29. 

reiterated  truth  has  been,  that  Christ's  body  and  blood,  oifered 
once  for  all,  sanctified  forever,  perfected  forever.  Whatever 
these  words  mean  in  our  context,  the  effect  is  expressly  a  "  for- 
ever-effect." That  it  plainly  is  when  considered  as  Christ's  part 
of  the  work.  But  when  by  :  have  been  sanctified  is  understood 
the  actual  experience  of  saving  regeneration,  what  becomes  of  this 
forever-effect,  in  one  that  treats  as  common  the  blood  that  has 
sanctified  him,  until  he  is  overtaken  with  judgment.  Thus  it 
appears,  that  so  far  from  being  constrained  by  :  has  been  sanctified 
to  understand  the  regenerating  effect  of  true  conversion,  we  are  to 
understand  a  provision  for  sanctifying  sinners  that  has  been  made. 
And  "  it  is  worthy  of  remark,"  indeed  (though  in  the  very  oppo- 
site sense  from  which  Alford  makes  the  remark),  how  Calvin 
interprets  our  h  <L  ijyidai'hj  :  Yalde  indignum  est  sanguinem 
Christi,  qui  sanctificntionis  nostrae  materia  est  profanare.  So,  too, 
"  by  which  expiation  has  been  made,"  '  though  bad  translation,  is 
true  interpretation. 

But  all  need  for  the  foregoing  disquisition  is  obviated  for 
those  that  concur  in  our  interpretation,  that  our  vers.  28,  29  pre- 
sent the  case  of  those  called  "  the  adversaries,"  ver.  27,  and  not 
the  case  of  those,  the  Author  included,  that  is  proposed  by  the 
expression  :  "  if  we  sin  willingly,"  etc.,  ver.  26.  Understanding 
the  Apostle  to  have  "  the  adversaries  "  in  mind,  it  is  impossible 
to  understand :  wherewith  he  was  sanctified  to  point  to  any- 
thing else  than  that  which  Christ's  blood  provided,  when,  by  His 
sacrifice,  it  became  the  blood  of  the  covenant.  At  the  same  time, 
the  foregoing  disquisition  corroborates  the  view  that  the'  Apostle 
is  representing  the  case  of  adversaries  of  Christ  who  were  never 
anything  else. 

Having  treated  the  Spirit  of  grace  with  contempt.  By  the 
Spirit  of  grace  is  meant  the  Spirit  that  confers  grace,^  and  not 
the  Spirit  as  a  gracious  gift.^  The  latter  interpretation  is  possi- 
ble only  to  one  who  supposes  that  the  Apostle  describes  a  person 
once  regenerate :  though  even  then  it  is  not  justified  by  the 
Author's  mode  of  discourse.     Only  twice,^  beside  the  present 

^  Stuart.  ^  Del.,  Riehm,  Alford. 

3  de  Wette,  Liin.,  von  Ilof.  *  ii.  4 ;  vi.  4. 


X.  28,  29.]  OFFICE   OF   THE   HOLY    SPIRIT.  387 

instance,  does  our  Author  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  an  agent  in 
effecting  our  salvation.  But  in  all  of  these  he  represents  that 
agency  precisely  as  it  is  elsewhere  represented  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, for  which  the  words  of  Christ  may  be  taken  as  the  expo- 
nent :  "  he  shall  bear  witness  of  me." '  In  ii.  4  the  Spirit  confirms 
the  spoken  gospel  of  sidvation  by  his  "  distributions."  As  at  xiii. 
20,  the  Author  says :  "  the  God  of  peace,"  meaning  that  God  is 
the  dispenser  of  peace  to  us,  so  here  he  says  :  the  Spirit  of  grace, 
meaning  that  the  Spirit  is  the  dispenser  of  grace  to  us.  The 
grace  which  the  Spirit  dispenses  is  the  whole  benefit  of  that 
which  is  God's  purpose  of  grace,^  making  it  our  personal  exper- 
ience, with  all  tliat  confirms  and  establishes  us  in  the  assurance 
and  enjoyment  of  it.^  That  the  Author  does  not  amplify  these 
topics,  or  more  frequently  refer  to  them,  is  sufficiently  explained 
by  his  subject,  which  is  Christ  and  His  work.  What  is  missed 
in  express  words,  is  abundantly  present  in  the  Author's  perform- 
ance, which,  as  an  inspired  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  from  beginning  to  end  a  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  Christ, 
and  taking  of  the  things  of  Christ  and  showing  them  to  men. 
In  the  order  of  our  topics,  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  His  atoning 
blood,  and  the  Spirit  that  applies  the  benefit  of  Christ,  we  have 
the  uniform  New  Testament  mode  of  representation,  and  con- 
sequently Paul's.  That  it  is  common  to  the  New  Testament, 
and  especially  characteristic  of  Paul,  is  not  to  be  dealt  with  as 
something  the  Author  borrows  from  Paul.*  It  is  one  among 
many  reasons  for  believing  that  our  Author  is  Paul. 

It  is  affirmed  that  the  expression :  treat  the  Spirit  of  grace 
with  contempt  implies  a  sin  that  "  is  impossible  without  an 
inward  experience  of  grace."  ®  Such  a  statement  can  only  excite 
our  wonder,  in  view  of  the  words  of  Christ,  IMatt.  xii.  31,  32  ; 
Luke  xii.  10 ;  and  especially  in  one  who  rejects  the  view  that 
the  Spirit  of  grace  means  "  the  spirit  which  is  the  gifl  of  grace," 
and  affirms  that  it  means  "  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  grace." 
One  can  insult  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  grace,  by  refusing  His 
grace,  and  opposing  all  the  manifestations  of  it.     That  is  what  the 

'.John  XV.  2r, ;  xvi.  7-14.  Mi.  9,  10.  ^  jii.  4;  xiii.  9. 

*  Against  Riehm,  p.  56,  on :  "  the  God  of  peace."  *  Del. 


388  VENGEANCE   IS   MINE.  [x.  30,  31. 

adversaries  of  Christ  did  when  they  ascribed  the  miracles  that  He 
did  by  the  fin  ^er  of  God  to  the  agency  of  the  prince  of  devils.^  And 
such  adversaries  the  Jews  continued  to  be  who  rejected  Christ,  and 
on  them  judgment  was  coming.^  These  are  the  ones  to  whom  the 
Apostle  refers  in  the  character  he  describes.  And  agreeably  to  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  in  the  passages  above  referred  to,  he  mentions 
insulting  the  Holy  Spirit  last  as  the  climax  of  criminality. 

Thus  he  has  put  the  case,  leaving  it  to  the  imagination  of  his 
readers  to  represent  how  great  must  be  the  punishment  of  such 
criminality,  and  to  remember  that  that  is  what  is  left  for  the 
supposed  situation,  when  one  has  willingly  sinned  by  turning 
from  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 

The  Apostle  has  not  proposed  to  the  imagination  what  shall  be 
the  punishment  of  the  adversaries  of  Christ,  but  how  dreadful  it 
must  be.  In  this  respect  the  imagination  will  be  affected,  not 
only  by  the  contemplation  of  the  criminality,  but  also  by  the 
thought  of  who  is  the  judge  and  executive.  Accordingly,  the 
Apostle  proceeds : 

Ver.  30.  For  we  know  him  that  said  ;  Vengeance  belongeth  to 
me,  I  will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord ;  and  again :  The  Lord  shall 
judge  his  people.  31.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of 
the  living  God. 

In  these  verses  the  Apostle  clothes  his  thought  in  scripture 
language.  It  is  essential  to  the  interpretation  of  his  meaning  to 
determine  whether  he  uses  the  language  with  the  meaning  it  has 
in  its  original  context  or  not.  For,  unless  we  refer  to  that 
context,  the  language  as  we  here  read  it  is  liable  to  be  understood 
in  a  way  different  from  what  it  expresses  in  its  original  position. 
The  words  of  our  ver.  30  are  found  Deut.  xxxii.  35,  36,  the 
words  of  the  second  clause  being  found  also  Ps.  cxxxv.  14.  The 
Author  evidently  has  in  mind  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy.  But 
there,  and  as  they  reappear  in  Ps.  cxxxv.,  the  meaning  of  the 
words  is,  that  God  will  judge  His  people  to  do  them  justice 
against  their  adversaries ;  and  the  vengeance  to  be  recompensed  is 
for  the  latter.  Moreover,  at  Rom.  xii.  19,  where  our  first  clause 
is  found  in  identical  words,  the  appeal  is  still  the  same,  giving 

^  Mark.  iii.  22-30.  "  Comp.  Acts  xiii.  44-52. 


X.  30,  31.]  GOD    WILL    JUDGE    HIS   PEOPLE.  389 

assurance  to  God's  people  that  He  will  vindicate  them  against 
their  enemies.  Only  very  compelling  reasons  in  our  context  can 
justify  us  in  supposing  that  our  Author  uses  the  same  language 
here  to  express  that  God  will  judge,  i.  e.,  condemn  His  people, 
and  visit  vengeance  on  them.^  Such  constraint  is  laid  on  the 
reader  if  he  supposes,  as  is  common,  that  from  ver.  26  the 
Author  has  in  mind,  in  all  he  represents,  the  character  designated 
by  the  expression  :  "  if  we  willingly  sin."  Then  the  context  pre- 
sents only  one  character  to  which  the  judging  and  the  execution 
can  appertain,  viz.,  apostate  believers.  But  this  constraint  does 
not  attend  our  interpretation,  which  has  marked  and  maintained 
a  distinction  between  the  Apostle  and  his  readers  designated  in 
the  expression  :  "  if  we  willingly  sin,"  and  others  designated  by : 
"  the  adversaries."  It  is  those  meant  in  the  first  expression  who 
are  to  "  consider  "  how  dreadful  must  be  the  punishment  deserved 
by  those  meant  by  the  second.  And,  in  our  ver.  30,  it  is  those 
meant  by  the  first  expression  that  are  subject  of  the  verb: 
we  know.  And  if  the  scripture  language  now  used  constrains 
us  to  understand  his  people  to  be,  not  punished,  but  vindicated, 
we  have  the  proper  subject  for  that  in  the  subject  of  the  verb : 
we  know.  And  if  the  vengeance  requires  for  object  those  that 
are  "the  adversaries  "  of  God,  we  have  them  also  in  those  whose 
criminality  has  just  been  "  considered."  But,  not  merely  does 
the  presence  of  these  distinct  and  contrasted  subjects,  viz.,  the 
Apostle  and  his  readers  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  adversaries 
on  the  other,  relieve  us  of  the  constraint  that  leads  readers  to 
understand  the  present  Old  Testament  language  in  a  way  so 
different  from  its  original  sense,  and  thus  of  resorting  to  various 
shifts  ^  to  reconcile  the  senses.  We  actually  find  in  the  original 
sense  of  the  words  the  very  meaning  that  is  appropriate  to  all 
the  context  down  to  ver.  34. 

The  Apostle  says :  For  we  know  him  that  says.  Were  it 
merely  his  object  to  bring  the  notion  of  God  as  judge  and  avenger 
to  complete  the  considerations  needful  for  imagining  how  dread- 
ful must  be  the  punishment  of  the  criminality  just  described,  it 
would  be  enough  to  say  :  "  For  we  know  that  God  hath  said." 

'  As  most  commentaries  represent.  *  Comp.  Lindsay,  Alford,  von  Hof. 


390  ROMANS  XII.  19.  [x.  30,  31. 

And  if  the  Apostle  identified  those  designated  by  :  "  if  we  will- 
ingly sin "  with  those  expressed  by :  "  the  adversaries,"  and 
comprehended  all  in  the  criminal  character  portrayed  ver.  29,  it 
seems  unlikely  that  he  would  say  :  we  know  him.  This  expres- 
sion, however,  is  most  appropriate  to  those  who,  in  the  language 
quoted,  are  named  as  his  people  in  the  sense  of  Deut.  xxxii.  36 ; 
Ps.  cxxxv.  14.  It  is  expressive  of  confidence,  and  of  the  feel- 
ing that  God  is  for  them,  and  thus  that  what  God  says  is  as 
their  defender  and  judge  in  the  sense  of  the  original  utterance. 

Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord,  is  not  a 
literal  quotation  of  Deut.  xxxii.  35  from  either  the  Hebrew  or 
the  LXX.  But  it  repeats  the  words  exactly  as  they  are  found 
Rom.  xii.  19.  This  can  give  cause  for  wonder  and  perplexity 
only  to  those  that  have  resolved  that  Paul  did  not  write  both 
epistles.  In  support  of  that  view,  appeal  is  made  to  the  supposed 
different  sense  in  which  the  words  are  used  here.  But  if,  as  the 
present  exposition  shows,  the  sentiment,  as  well  as  the  expression 
is  identical  in  both  places,  that  reason  for  supposing  different 
Authors  disappears.  Regarding  the  textual  question,  whether  to 
retain :  saith  the  Lord,^  seeing  the  evidence  for  and  against  is  so 
nearly  balanced  we  prefer  to  retain  it.^  We  cannot  repress  the 
suspicion  that  the  view,  at  present  fashionable,  that  rejects  Paul's 
authorship  of  our  epistle,  has  influenced  editors  to  reject  the 
words.  As  our  words  are  used  Rom.  xii.  19,  "Avenge  not 
yourselves,  beloved,  but  give  place  unto  wrath,  for  it  is  written : 
Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord,"  the  object 
IS  to  encourage  believers  to  patience  and  to  perseverance  in  well- 
doing, while  suffering  from  their  adversaries.  To  this  end  the 
language  is  quoted  as  a  promise  on  which  they  may  rely.  Leav- 
ing retribution  for  evil  to  God  who  will  vindicate  His  people,  the 
Apostle  would  have  them  attend  to  "  overcoming  evil  with  good." 

'  Rejected  by  Tr.  Tischend.  viii.,  after  having  resumed  it  in  vii.,  W.  &  H. 
Version  1881. 

*  Eetained  by  Del.,  Liin.,  von  Hof.,  Alford.  "The  previous  rbv  e'nrovra 
eeeming  to  make  it  superfluous,  it  is  probable  that  the  omission  may  have  been 
an  early  one  due  to  a  sense  of  convenience  and  propriety."  Del.  Similarly 
von  Hof. 


X.  30,  31.]  A   COMFORTING   PROMISE.  391 

The  object  of  quoting  the  same  divine  assurance  here  is  the  same, 
with  only  the  difference,  that  there  is  no  reference  to  overcoming 
evil  with  good.  The  latter  is  inappropriate  to  readers  whose 
danger  was,  not  retaliation,  but  yielding  to  persecution  and 
seduction. 

The  Lord  will  judge  his  people,  is  said,  then,  with  the  same 
meaning  as  in  the  other  places  where  it  occurs.  God  will  take 
the  part  of  His  people  against  their  adversaries,  who  are  also  His. 
The  whole  passage,  Deut.  xxxii.  1 5-43  should  be  read,  that  it  may 
appear  how  our  whole  passage  vers.  26-38  reflects  the  represen- 
tations there.  As  we  have  noted  the  correspondence  between 
Deut.  xxxii.  15-34,  to  our  vers.  26-29,  so  there  is  a  correspond- 
ence between  Deut.  xxxii.  35-43,  and  our  vers.  30-38.  Beside 
the  words  actually  quoted,  we  should  notice  :  "  Neither  is  there 
any  that  can  deliver  out  of  my  hand.  For  I  lift  my  hand  to 
heaven,  and  say :  I  live  forever.  I  will  render  vengeance  to 
mine  enemies,  and  will  reward  them  that  hate  me  .  .  .  For  he 
will  avenge  the  blood  of  his  servants,  and  will  render  vengeance 
to  his  adversaries,  and  will  be  merciful  to  his  land  and  to  his 
people."  This  passage  from  which  the  Apostle  quotes  was  some 
of  the  most  familiar  scripture  to  Jews,^  and  all  tliis  sentiment 
would  be  understood  by  his  readers  to  be  brought  in  along  with 
his  brief  quotation.  Here,  as  at  Rom.  xii.  19,  the  Apostle 
changes  the  language  so  as  to  make  it  a  promise.  This  is  inter- 
pretation, as  well  as  citation.  Yet  as  interpretation,  it  requires 
for  its  justification  the  whole  context  of  Deut.  xxxii.  35—43.  As 
an  interpretation  it  is  perfectly  correct ;  and  when  contemplated 
in  all  its  extent,  it  appears  as  one  of  the  most  glorious  consola- 
tions of  God's  word.  As  such  it  was  received  and  relied  upon 
by  the  Old  Testament  Church ;  and  we  observe  from  our  pas- 
sage, and  from  Rom.  xii.  19,  that  it  is  intended  to  be  the  comfort 
of  God's  people  still,  to  secure  their  constancy  and  animate  them 
to  boldness  under  similar  trials.  And  so  it  has  been  constantly 
used  by  Christians. 

In  view  of  what  is  singular  in  our  interpretation,  it  is  expe- 

'  Comp.  above  on  i.  6. 


392  A   FEARFUL  THING   TO   FALL   INTO         [x.  30,  31. 

dient  to  call  to  mind  at  this  point,  at  least  briefly/  the  import- 
ance that  attaches  to  the  passage  Deat.  xxxii.  35-43,  from  which 
the  Apostle  quotes,  and  which  he  formulates  as  a  promise.  The 
moulding  influence  of  chapter  xxxii.  of  Deuteronomy  on  the 
religious  thoughts  of  Old  Testament  believers  appears  from 
coincidences  of  expression  scattered  all  through  later  books. 
Comp.,  e.  g.,  ver.  1  and  Ps.  1.  4 ;  Mic.  i.  2  ;  Isa.  i.  2 ;  ver.  7,  and 
Job  viii.  8;  ver.  23  and  Job  vi.  4;  ver.  39  and  Job  v.  18;  x.  7. 
Delitzsch  says  of  this  song :  "  it  may  be  called  the  compendious 
outline  and  the  common  key  to  all  prophecy."  ^  It  is  not  mere 
literary  reflection  of  the  chapter,  like  that  indicated  in  the  texts 
just  cited,  that  justifies  this  statement.  In  Isaiah  we  find  the 
future  of  Israel  and  the  Messianic  history  portrayed  in  the  same 
spirit  and  with  the  same  outlines  that  appeal'  in  this  inspired  pro- 
gramme of  coming  ages  from  the  lips  and  pen  of  Moses.  We 
have  seen  ^  that  when  Peter,^  and  Paul  ^  refer  to  the  situation 
where  the  chosen  people  become  the  adversaries  of  God  by 
rejecting  his  Messiah,  they  express  themselves  in  language  drawn 
from  this  chapter.  If,  then,  we  have,  as  in  our  verse  30,  such  an 
expression  as :  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  recompense,  saith  the 
Lord,  formulating  the  sentiment  of  Deut.  xxxii.  35-43  into  a 
word  of  promise,  we  must  suppose  it  has  the  sense  of  the  origi- 
nal passage,  and  has  that  sense  in  all  its  fullness  and  importance. 
In  these  words,  then,  we  have  a  promise  as  solemn  and  emphatic, 
as  that  referred  to  xii.  26,  and  indeed  the  same  promise. 

It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God. 
It  is  usual  to  treat  this  as  a  reminiscence  of  2  Sam.  xxiv.  14, 
nothwithstanding  that  expresses  a  sentiment  so  different  from 
this,  and  so  inappropriate.  For  there  David  has  a  reserve  of 
comfort  in  the  mercy  of  God ;  while  here  the  dreadfulness  of 
falling  into  God's  hands  is  the  exclusive  notion.  We  think, 
however,  that  the  Apostle  has  only  in  mind  the  passage  which 

iComp.  Lange-Schaff,  Bib.  Work.,  Deut.  Introd.  §  7,  "The  Manifold 
Importance  of  Deuteronomy,"  where  may  be  found  many  details  bearing  espe- 
cially on  chap,  xxxii. 

^  Comp.  in  Lange-Schaff,  Nagelsbach  on  Isaiah  i.  2. 

*  See  above  extended  note  after  ii.  3.  *  Acts  ii.  40.  ^  Eom.  x.  19. 


X.  32.]  THE    HANDS    OF   THE    LIVING   GOD.  393 

he  has  just  formulated  into  a  promise  as  it  concerns  the  people 
of  God.  But  in  the  words  before  us  he  expresses  its  sentiment 
as  it  concerns  "  the  adversaries."  We  have  quoted  above  some 
of  the  language  to  the  point.  But  it  is  especially  the  following 
words  that  are  reflectal  here  :  "  See  now  that  I,  even  I  am  lie, 
and  there  is  no  god  with  me ;  I  kill  and  I  make  alive ;  I  wound 
and  I  heal ;  neither  is  there  any  that  can  deliver  out  of  my  hand. 
For  I  lift  up  my  hand  to  heaven,  and  say :  I  live  forever."  ^ 
Here  is  language  that  suggests  the  expression  of  our  ver.  31,  and 
explains  every  word  in  it.  Living  God  here  denotes  the  unchange- 
able, dreadful,  and  inexorable  God,  and  expresses  that  Pie  lives 
now  as  then,  to  do  now  as  He  threatened  then. 

Ver.  32.  But  call  to  remembrance  the  former  days,  in  which, 
after  ye  were  enlightened,  ye  endured  much  conflict  of  suffering,  33. 
partly  being  made  a  spectacle  both  by  reproaches  and  afilictions, 
and  partly  having  become  partakers  of  those  that  were  thus 
living. 

It  has  been  usual  to  suppose  that  the  Apostle  makes  a  transi- 
tion here  from  solemn  warning  to  commendation,  as  he  does  at 
vi.  9-12.  But,  with  the  meaning  we  have  ascertained  for  vers. 
30,  31,  it  becomes  plain  that  the  only  transition  is  that  which 
began  already  in  those  verses.  Giving  the  considerations  Avith 
reference  to  God,  that  justify  the  anticipation  of  dreadful  pun- 
ishment for  the  adversaries,  has  involved  the  reference  to  the 
grounds  for  God's  procedure  in  such  cases,  viz..  His  doing  justice 
to  the  cause  of  His  people,  and  vindicating  them  against  their 
oppressors.  Now  the  Apostle  turns  to  remind  his  readers  that  they 
have  had  the  experience  thai  warrants  them  in  looking  for  this  vinr- 
dication  on  their  behalf.  In  doing  this  he  turns  from  regarding 
the  situation  as  one  perilous  with  threatening  apostasy,  and  thus 
guilt,  on  their  part,  to  treating  it  as  a  situation  wherein  they  are 
the  feeble  objects  of  a  malice  that  would  wrest  them  from  God 
and  subject  them  to  destruction.  This  is  precisely  the  transition 
that  occurs  in  Deut.  xxxii.  15-43,  at  vers.  35,  36,  where  the 
Apostle  quotes:  "For  the  Lord  shall  judge  his  people,  and 
repent  himself  for  his  servants,  when  he  seeth  that  their  power 

1  Deut.  xxxii.  39,  40. 


394  EEMEMBEE  THE  FORMER  DAYS,         [x.  32. 

is  gone,  and  there  is  none  shut  up,  or  left,"  ver.  36.  If  this  transi- 
tion and  progress  of  the  Apostle's  thought  has  beeu  usually 
missed,  and  if  even  now  it  be  challenged  when  pointed  out,  that 
is  only  what  has  occurred  with  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy,  on 
which  the  Apostle,  as  it  seems  to  us,  moulds  his  discourse  at  this 
point.  In  the  Deuteronomy  passage,  just  as  the  reader  expects 
the  discourse  to  begin  to  breathe  out  retribution  against  the  faith- 
less people  of  God,  who  have  turned  to  idols,  he  finds  instead, 
that  the  fury  of  vengeance  is  turned  against  those  whose  oppo- 
sition has  caused  the  people  to  err,  i.  c,  against  idols  and  idola- 
ters. The  sentiment  of  the  transition  is  finely  expressed  by  the 
Psalmist's  words :  "  Touch  not  mine  anointed,  and  do  my 
prophets  no  harm,"  Ps.  cv.  15.  Such  is  the  transition  of  the 
Apostle's  discourse  in  which  we  find  ourselves  at  the  verses 
before  us. 

The  expressions  we  are  now  to  examine  agree  with  the  view 
just  presented.  Were  this  a  transition  from  warning  to 
commendation,  like  vi.  9  sqq.,  then  it  Mould  be  the  effort  of 
the  Apostle,  as  there,  to  show  that  he  has  not  forgotten  the  evi- 
dences of  former  faithfulness.  It  would  be  likely,  also,  that,  as 
there,  he  would  mention  actually  existing  proof  of  the  same. 
Instead  of  that,  however,  he  bids  his  readers  call  to  remembrance 
the  significant  facts,  ichich  are  facts  of  the  past.  It  was  for  them 
to  remember,  if  they  would  feel  the  eifect  of  the  promise  just  ap- 
pealed to.  The  facts  referred  to  occurred  after  they  were  enlight- 
ened {(fwna^'H'^Tz*;)}  As  this  expression  is  intended  to  mark  a 
point  of  time,  it  must  mean  when  the  readers  became  Christians ;  ^ 
and,  as  the  reference  is  to  them  as  a  body,  it  must  mean  when 
they  became  a  Christian  church  of  the  region  where  they  were. 
Nothing  in  the  present  passage  helps  us  to  understand  where  the 
readers  belonged  geographically.  But  it  furnishes  proof  positive 
that  the  readers  were  of  the  same  period  as  the  Apostles,  and  not 
of  a  second  generation.^  The  readers  themselves  are  to  remember 
the  period  of  enlightenment  and  the  subsequent  trials  as  personal 
experiences.  That  period  was  when  Jews  as  such  were  largely 
gathered  into  churches,  and  the  trials  were  such  as  came  from 
^  Comp.  vi.  4.  ^  von  Hof.  ^  Comp.  at  ii.  3. 


X.  34.]  AFTER    YE   WERE   ENLIGHTENED.  395 

Jewish  persecution.  Both  of  these  belong  to  the  first  generation 
of  Christians. 

At  the  time  referred  to,  they  endured  much  suffering.  Neither 
this  expression,  nor  the  following  ampliticution  of  it,  gives  us  a 
clear  hint  of  the  precise  nature  of  the  sufferings.  They  were 
such  as  characterized  the  time,  and  were  sure  to  be  inflicted  by 
those  that  had  power  to  persecute,  or  could  subsidize  such  power. 
No  one  has  yet  succeeded  in  identifying  the  persecution  to  which 
the  present  description  must  be  referred.  We  infer  from  the 
context  that  it  was  Jewish  persecution,  such  as  Saul  of  Tarsus 
carried  on,  that  aimed  at  destroying  all  Jews  that  would  be 
Christians,  or  making  them  blaspheme.^  This,  which  has  been 
the  common  view,  agrees  exactly  with  the  interpretation  we  make 
of  the  passage  before  us.  The  sufferings  were  inflicted  because 
they  were  believers  in  Christ,  to  make  them  turn  from  the 
faith. 

What  is  peculiar  about  the  amplification  of  the  sufferings  re- 
ferred to,  is  that  the  Apostle  purposely  describes  them  in  a  way  to 
comprehend  all  his  readers  as  haviny  endured  them.  If  not 
directly,  still  indirectly,  or  constructively  they  had  endured  the 
assaults  of  the  adversaries  of  Christ.  All,  therefore,  ought  to 
feel  the  support  that  comes  from  the  assurance  :  "  the  Lord  will 
judge  his  people."  Such  is  the  comprehensive  force  of  ver.  33. 
They  were  made  a  spectacle,  perhaps  in  very  theatres  {'"^sarpd^o/isvot); 
or  they  made  what  others  suffered  in  this  way  their  own,  as 
partakers  with  them  that  thus  lived,  'Avaffzpsfo/iivwj  is  best  ren- 
dered conformably  to  its  ethical  use  elsewhere  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, where  it  means  :  "  manner  of  living." 

Following  this  comprehensive  statement  is  ver.  34,  which  is 
introduced  by  for,  because  it  adduces  what  substantiates  the  second 
clause  of  verse  33,  which,  as  something  less  obvious  than  the  first 
clause  to  those  of  whom  that  was  true,  needs  elucidation  ;  like 
the ':  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  the  least  of  these  my  brethren, 
ye  did  it  unto  me."  ^ 

Ver.  34.     For  ye  both  had  compassion  on  them  that  were  in 

^  Acts  xxvi.  10,  11. 
«  Matt.  XXV.  40. 


396  CAST   NOT   AWAY   YOUR   BOLDNESS.  [x.  35. 

bonds,*  and  took  joyfully  the  spoiling  of  your  possessions,  knowing 
that  ye  yourselves  have  a  better  possession,  and  an  abiding  one. 

It  is  supposed  ^  that :  had  compassion,  etc.,  corresponds  to : 
"were  partakers,"  etc.,  ver.  33;  and:  took  joyfully,  etc.,  to: 
"  were  made  a  spectacle ; "  thus  taking  our  verse  as  explanatory 
of  the  whole  of  ver.  33,  and  so  the  two  particulars  as  referring  to 
different  experiences.  If,  however,  our  ver.  34  is  explanatory 
only  of:  "  were  partakers,"  etc.,  ver.  33,  then  the  two  particulars 
of  the  verse  do  not  express  different  things,  but  the  latter  refers 
to  the  practical  proof  that  was  given  of  tlie  former.  They  had 
shown  their  sympathy  by  sharing  their  substance,  say  by  paying 
the  fines  of  those  imprisoned.  Thus  their  own  substance  was 
spent.  And  because  they  suffered  this  loss  by  reason  of  violence 
that  made  the  necessity,  the  Apostle  calls  it :  the  spoiling  of  their 
goods.  With  less  motive  for  so  strong  a  term,  he  says :  "  I 
robbed  otlier  churches,  taking  wages  of  them,  that  I  might  min- 
ister unto  you,"  (2  Cor.  xi.  8).  If  such  be  the  meaning,  then 
accepting  the  reading  iauTu6<?,^  we  have  the  appropriate  antitheses, 
of  what  they,  and  of  what  others  possess.*  Having  surrendered 
their  goods  in  this  icay,  they  know  that  while  others  have  those 
goods,  they  themselves  have  an  abiding  possession,  viz.,  a  heavenly.^ 

Yer.  35.  Cast  not  away,  therefore,  your  boldness,  which  hath 
great  recompense  of  reward. 

In  the  experiences,  of  which  the  Apostle  reminds  them,  they 
had  shown  great  boldness  (jzapprjfrtav)  ^  in  believing.  That  was 
their  boldness,  in  a  sense  quite  different  from  the  boldness  referred 
to  ver.  19,  which  is  spoken  of  as  something  they  have  along  with 
the  Author  only  in  view  of  the  foregoing  argument  that  shows 
they  ought  to  have  it.  Referring,  then,  to  the  boldness  they 
actually  had  by  therefore  ("w-'),''  the  readers  are  exhorted  not  to 
cast  it  away.  They  could  only  cease  to  be  bold  by  what  would 
be  tantamount  to  casting  away  willfully  the  boldness  they  had  ; 

'  fiov  rejected  by  Lach.  Tr.  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.,  version  1881,  Del.,  Liin.,  Al- 
ford ;  defended  by  von  Hof.  ^  Liin.  Alford. 

3  With  Lach.,  Tr.  Tisch.,  W.  and  H.  Version  1881 ;  against  von  Hof.,  Al- 
ford, Del. 

*  Comp.  von  Hof.  *  Comp.  Matt.  xix.  21 ;  Luke,  xvi.  9,  11. 

e  Comp.  Acts  iv.  13,  29,  31 ;  Eph.  vi.  19,  20.  '  So  Lun. 


X.  36.]         YE  HAVE  NEED  OF  PATIENCE.  397 

because  they  had  such  strong  reason  for  being  bold  notwithstand- 
ing all  their  adversaries  might  do.  Thus  the  Apostle  says  not :  do 
not  lose  your  boldness,  but :  cast  not  away.  Pie  follows  this  with 
the  affirmation  of  the  strouo;  reason  for  maintainino;  the  boldness  : 
which  hath  great  recompense  of  reward  (^fj.'.fT<'hi7:<i5iifTw^).  We  have 
here  the  Author's  peculiar  word.*  His  use  of  it  does  not  permit 
us  to  suppose  that  the  present  affirmation  has  reference  to  the 
"  abiding  substance  "  mentioned  in  ver.  34,^  or  to  positive  heav- 
enly substance.  At  ii,  2  it  means  the  recompense  of  transgres- 
sions and  disobedience.  And  at  xi.  26  it  may  mean,  and  we 
suppose  it  does,  the  recompense  to  be  visited  on  Pharaoh  and 
Egypt  for  "  afflicting  the  people  of  God."  And  the  thought  of 
our  whole  context,  vers.  26—28,  requires  us  to  suppose  that  here 
the  word  has  the  same  meaning.  At  vers.  30,  31,  we  have  seen 
that  the  Author  makes  a  transition  from  viewing  the  "judgment 
a-coming  on  the  adversaries,"  as  a  calamity  for  them,  to  viewing 
it  as  a  deliverance  for  the  people  of  God.  In  the  latter  aspect  he 
has  continued  to  regard  it,  while  reminding  the  readers  of  what 
they  have  endured,  and  boldly  endured,  from  the  persecutions 
of  such  adversaries.  And  with  the  same  combination  of  ideas 
that  leads  him  to  say,  vers.  30,  31  :  we  know  that  God  will  de- 
liver his  people  by  a  judgment ;  it  is  dreadful  for  those  that  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  living  God  ;  so  he  says  here  :  continue  to 
maintain  your  bold  confession  of  Christ  against  those  that  afflict 
you,  for  it  has  a  great  recompense,  deliverance  for  you,  but  ven- 
geance for  the  adversaries ;  the  Lord  will  judge  his  people. 
Viewed  in  this  aspect,  the  recompense  appears  as  a  promise,  as 
we  observed  at  ver.  30.     Accordingly,  the  Apostle  proceeds  : 

Ver.  36.  For  ye  have  need  of  patience,  in  order  that,  having 
done  the  will  of  God,  ye  may  receive  the  promise. 

It  is  generally  supposed,  that :  the  promise  here  refers  to  the 
reward  of  the  life  to  come,  and  that  our  vers.  35,  36,  appeal  to 
that  reward  and  exhort  to  patience  till  it  is  received.  Thus  it  is 
assumed  that  the  expression  itself  carries  in  it  all  that  meaning, 
as  if,  k-ayyt).ia  were  a  sort  of  Christian  technical  term.  We  have 
already  seen  that  such  is  not  the  fact.'     Uj)  lo  the  present  the 

^  Ck)mp.  ii.  2;  xi.  2G.  «  As  von  Hof.  '  See  above  at  vi.  12. 


398  DOING   THE  WILL   OF   GOD.  [x.  36. 

word  has  occurred  seven  times.  At  iv.  1  it  is  the  promise  of 
entering  God's  rest.  At  vi.  12  "the  promises"  are  many,  and 
different  as  the  persons  that  received  them.  At  vi.  15  "  thd 
promise "  is  that  given  to  Abraham  of  a  numerous  posterity. 
At  vi.  17  "  the  heirs  of  the  promise  "  are  those  that  have  received 
the  promise  discoursed  on  at  iv.  1  sqq.  At  vii.  6  "  the  promises  " 
are  all  those  with  which  Abraham  had  been  favored.  At  viii.  6 
the  "  better  promises  "  are  the  present  benefits  of  the  new  cove- 
nant as  foretold  by  Jeremiah  and  recited  viii.  10  sqq.  At  ix.  15 
"  the  promise  of  the  everlasting  inheritance/'  is  the  definite  thing 
supposed  to  be  meant  by  iTzayyeX.  as  a  technical  term ;  but  it  is  to 
be  noted  that  the  definition  is  in  the  expression  as  a  whole,  and 
not  in  the  meaning  that  iTrayyeX.  carries  in  itself  Thus  it  appears, 
from  the  foregoing  use  of  iTzayytX.  in  our  epistle,  that  in  every 
instance  its  meaning  must  be  determined  by  the  context,  and  that 
the  Author's  discourse  does  not  invest  it  with  a  meaning-  of  its 
own,  so  that  when  he  says :  "  the  promise "  he  means  some- 
thing, viz.,  the  future  reward,  as  "  the  promise  "  par  excellence. 

The  present  context  points  to  the  promise  expressed  ver.  30, 
that  God  will  judge  his  people,  i.  e.,  vindicate  them.  When  he 
does  that  in  the  case  of  the  readers,  and  all  situated  like  them, 
they  will  receive  that  promise  in  the  way  of  actual  fulfillment.  On 
xofid^u),  Mid.,  see  above  under  vi.  12. 

But  they  have  need  of  patience  till  that  event ;  and  the  patience 
must  be  sustained  by  such  boldness  as  they  have  already  shown. 
Thus  the  Author  says :  "  cast  not  away  your  boldness,  for  ye  have 
need  of  patience,  in  order  that,  having  done  the  will  of  God,  ye 
may  receive,"  etc.  Thus :  "  doing  the  will  of  God,"  appears  as 
another  expression  for  boldness  maintained  with  patience.  And 
receiving  the  promise  in  question  is  represented  as  the  consequence 
of  "  doing  the  will  of  God."  For  we  must  here,  as  usually, 
construe  the  present  participial  clause  as  expressing  something 
antecedent  to  what  is  expressed  by  the  direct  verb  following,^ 
and  not  something  attendant  upon  or  coincident  with  the  direct 
predicate.^  The  doing  the  will  of  God  meant  here  is  such  as  must 
correspond  to  the  representation  of  vers.  32-34,  which  is  the  im- 

•  With  von  Hof.  *  Against  Del.,  Alford,  Davidson. 


X.  37.]  A   VERY   LITTLE  WHILE   YET.  399 

mediate  suggestion  for  saying  they  have  need  of  patience.  It  is 
often  spoken  of  elsewhere  as  the  will  of  God.  AVlien  Paul  would 
not  be  constrained  from  going  into  the  lion's  mouth  of  Jewish 
persecution,  his  companions  desisted  from  dissuading  him,  saying : 
"  God's  will  be  done."  *  To  the  saints  in  Philippi  that  had 
suffered  much  and  still  suffered  from  the  same  cause,  the  Apostle 
writes  in  a  strain  parallel  with  the  sentiment  of  the  passage  be- 
fore us :  "  Stand  fast  in  one  spirit,  with  one  soul  striving  for  the 
faith  of  the  gospel ;  and  in  nothing  affrighted  by  your  adversaries  ; 
which  is  for  them  an  evident  token  of  perdition,  but  of  your  sal- 
vation, and  that  from  God,  because  to  you  it  hath  been  granted 
in  the  behalf  of  Christ,  not  only  to  believe  in  him,  but  also  to 
suffer  in  his  behalf;  having  the  same  conflict  which  ye  saw  in 
me,  and  now  hear  to  be  in  me ; "  adding  a  little  after :  "  Let 
your  forbearance  be  known  unto  all  men.  The  Lord  is  at  hand."  ^ 
We  have  already  pointed  to  the  related  passage  Rom.  xii.  19. 

The  need  of  patience  is  not  interminable. 

Ver.  37.  For  yet  a  very  little  while.  He  that  is  coining  shaU 
come,  and  shall  not  tarry. 

To  speak  first  of  the  Old  Testament  reference  of  these  words, 
the  first :  luxpov  oaov  o(tov  =  a  very  little  while  is  from  Isa.  xxvi. 
20,  according  to  LXX.  And  yet  so  brief  a  phrase  would  not 
justify  us  in  supposing  an  allusion  to  that  passage,  exceptional 
as  this  phrase  is  in  scriptural  Greek,  were  it  not  for  the  appro- 
priateness t»  our  context  of  the  passage  where  it  is  found.  It 
reads :  "  Come,  my  people,  enter  thou  into  thy  chambers,  and 
shut  thy  doors  about  thee ;  hide  thyself,  as  it  were,  for  a  little 
moment,  until  the  indignation  be  overpast."  The  /uxpov  oaov  offnv 
"  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  nominative  absolute  (like  k'zc  juxp/y^,  John 
xiv.  9  ;  comp.  Isa.  xxix.  7,  in  the  Hebrew),  rcstat  panhdum 
temporis."  ^  Or  "  nothing  more  than  an  i^riv  is  to  be  supplied."  * 
As  an  allusion  to  Isa.  xxvi.  20,  the  expression  does  not  denote 
that  the  indignation  will  soon  come,  but  that  it  will  soon  be 
over.  And  this  is  the  sentiment  that  ver.  36  leads  us  to  expect. 
The  Apostle  would  express  that  the  need  for  patience  will  not  be 

'  Acts  xxi.  14.  » Phil.  i.  27-30 ;  iv.  5 ;  comp.  1  Tet.  iv.  16-19. 

'  DeL  *  Liin. 


400  HE   THAT   IS   COMING  [x.  37. 

long.^  This  gives  the  coloring  to  what  is  further  said,  which, 
while  it  portends  calamity  to  some,  is  to  be  deliverance  from  the 
situation  that,  in  the  readers,  calls  for  patience  and  doing  the  will 
of  God  in  suffering  Jewish  persecution  on  behalf  of  Christ.^ 
The  present  is  the  time  of  distress  for  them.  The  approaching 
calamity  will  be  their  release. 

The  next  clause  :  He  that  is  coming  shall  come,  and  shall  not 
tarry,  with  the  words  of  ver.  38,  is  language  borrowed  from 
Hab.  ii.  3,  4,  but  too  much  modified  to  be  understood  as  a  pro- 
phetic quotation.  But  while  the  Author  uses  the  scripture  lan- 
guage to  clothe  his  own  thought  and  give  it  more  solemn  expres- 
sion, the  language  must  derive  its  fitness  for  this  because  of  some 
of  its  original  meaning  clinging  to  it. 

The  words  :  He  that  is  coming  .  .  .  not  tarry  represent  Hab. 
ii.  3,  which,  speaking  of  a  vision  of  the  fall  of  the  Chaldean 
monarchy,  says  of  the  vision:  "though  it  tarry,  wait  for  it, 
because  it  will  surely  come,  it  will  not  tarry."  The  LXX.  ren- 
dering this,  makes  Jehovah  Himself,  and  not  the  vision,  the  sub- 
ject of  the  verbs  he  shall  come,  etc.,  ore  ip/oiisvo?  ri^sc  xa\  ab  p-i] 
Xpo'Aarj.  This  change  our  Author  marks  still  more  precisely  by 
writing  6  ip-(u/j.£i/o?.  Many  ^  take  this  6  ip^o/ievo'?  =  He  that  is 
coming,  as  a  designation  for  the  Messiah,  and  the  meaning  to  be 
His  second  coming.  But  the  whole  context  from  ver.  28  directs 
our  thoughts  to  the  retribution  coming  on  those  that  rejected  their 
Messiah,^  while  ver  30  presents  God  as  the  judge  of  His  own 
people  to  do  them  justice  against  their  adversaries.  He  that  is 
coming,  then,  means  God  as  so  represented ;  and  designated  thus, 
in  language  borrowed  from  the  prophet,  the  meaning  is,  that  He 
comes  to  visit  retribution  as  when,  against  the  Chaldean  power, 
"  he  went  forth  for  the  salvation  of  His  people,  even  for  salva- 
tion with  His  anointed,"  and  "  the  mountains  saw  Him  and 
trembled.  The  sun  and  the  moon  stood  still  in  their  habi- 
tation." ^ 

>  So  Calvin.  »  Comp.  2  These,  i.  4-10. 

'  Liin.,  Del.,  Alford,  Hammond,  Owen,  Lindsay,  etc. 

*  So  Ebrard,  Stuart  and  McLean  and  Baumgarten,  though  making  Christ 
subject.  *  Hab.  iii.  10.  11,  13. 


X.  37.]  SHALL   COME,   AND   NOT   TARRY.  401 

The  Apostle  represents  this  event  as  the  end  of  needing  to  be 
patient,  and  as  the  beginning  of  receiving  the  promise.  It  must 
be  because  of  this  connection  of  thought  that  most  readers  have 
supposed  that  the  coming  can  only  refer  to  the  final  judgment. 
But  a  comparison  of  xii.  25-28,  where  the  Author  recurs  to  the 
same  thoughts,  confirms  the  impression  that  our  present  passage 
ought  of  itself  to  make,  viz.,  that  we  are  here  introduced  into 
the  same  sphere  of  })rophetic  events  that  are  represented  in  the 
words  of  Jesus  when  He  spoke  of  the  approaching  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.^  In  those  words  what  is  near  and  what  is  remote 
are  blended  in  a  way  that  makes  it  difficult  to  distinguish  the 
particular  reference.  But  everything  in  our  passage  constrains 
us  to  understand  that  the  Apostle  appeals  to  this  prophecy  of 
Jesus,  as  it  lived  in  the  minds  of  disciples,  and  also  that  he 
appeals  to  it  as  it  referred  to  events  that  were  near.  His  very 
words  reflect  the  language  of  that  prophecy.  For  Jesus  said  of 
the  period  of  persecution  preceding  the  catastrophe :  "  In  your 
patience  ye  shall  win  your  souls  ;  "  ^  and  also  :  "  but  he  that 
endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved."  ^  And  of  the  event  itself 
he  said :  "  But  when  these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass,  look  up, 
and  lift  up  your  heads  ;  because  your  redemption  draweth  nigh," 
(^kyyil^st  7j  aT:oh'jTpu}<Ti<;  urj.(o>).  With  these  Compare  the  expres- 
sions and  sentiment  of  our  vers.  36-39.  We  have  noted  that 
the  Author's  language  (6  ipyo/jevm^)  does  not  expressly  refer  to 
the  event  as  the  coming  of  Christ,  but  as  the  coming  of  God  to 
judge  His  people  for  their  deliverance.  The  same  is  true  at  xii. 
25  sqq.  This  is  no  discrepancy.  The  Apostle  similarly  makes 
God  the  agent  in  the  destruction  attending  the  coming  of  Christ 
in  2  Thess.  i.  4-10. 

The  Author  proceeds  in  language  drawn  from  the  same  souixje 
(Hab.  ii.  3,  4).  Our  ver.  38,  corresponds  to  the  LXX.  render- 
ing of  Hab.  ii.  4  ;  but  the  clauses  are  in  an  inverted  order.*  This 
illustrates  the  Author's  freedom  in  citing  the  Old  Testament. 
The  order  of  the  clauses  that  he  gives  suits  his  own  order  of 

^  Matt,  xxiv ;  Luke  xxi.     Comp.  McLean. 

'  Luke  xxi.  19.  '  Matt.  xxiv.  13. 

*  For  criticism  of  the  text  comp.  Del. 

26 


402  THE    RIGHTEOUS    BY    FAITH    SHALL    LIVE.         [x.  38. 

thought ;  it  has,  also,  the  effect  of  obviating  any  ambiguity  as 
to  the  subject  of  UTzoarziXjjrai} 

Ver.  38  a.     But  my  righteous  one  by  faith  shall  live. 

So  the  first  clause  reads,  ambiguously,  leaving  the  reader  to 
determine  whether  by  faith  qualifies  righteous  or  shall  live.  The 
same  words  occur  with  the  same  ambiguity  Rom.  i.  17  ;  Gal.  iii. 
11.  The  LXX.  reads  6  duato<i  ix  Tziarew^  fxou  ;  whereas  our  text 
reads :  6  SUaio^  /luu  ix  nitrrewg.  The  fj.ov,  indeed,  may  belong  to 
the  7tc(TTstog  though  separated  from  it  by  ix,^  and  thus  only  the 
order  of  words  may  be  different  from  the  LXX.  But  no 
emphasis  or  other  advantage  seems  to  be  secured  by  transposing 
the  fj.ou  in  that  case.  On  the  other  hand,  removing  it  from  the 
■Kirrreioq  corrects  the  LXX.  rendering  so  far  as  to  make  it  nearer 
the  Hebrew,  which  reads ;  "the  righteous  one  by  his  faith  shall 
live."  The  jiou  may  be  explained,  if  we  ascertain  who  is  the 
speaker  in  the  first  person  singular  in  the  two  clauses  of  our  verse. 
It  is  usual  to  understand  that  the  Author  introduces  these  words 
as  God  speaking.  But  a  scrutiny  of  his  style  through  the  entire 
epistle  affords  no  other  instance  of  his  doing  so  without  explicitly 
denoting  that  God  is  the  speaker.^ 

The  freedom  tlie  Author  takes  here  with  the  scripture  lan- 
guage he  uses  (transposing  the  clauses,  conforming  in  the  first 
clause  neither  to  the  Hebrew  nor  to  the  LXX.,  adopting  in  the 
second  clause  the  LXX.  which  is  no  proper  translation  of  the 
Hebrew),  leads  us  to  suppose  that  we  have  another  instance  of 
clothing  his  own  thoughts  in  the  sacred  language.^  We  thus 
understand  the  Apostle  himself  to  speak  in  the  first  person,® 
though  in  this  epistle  he  rarely  does  so.^  This  gives  a  pointed 
meaning  to  the  words  before  us,  and  they  appear  no  more  abrupt 
than  when  they  are  taken  as  God  speaking.  Taking  the  words 
so,  the  Si  is  not  without  significance,  as  it  would  be  if  only  a  part 
of  the  quoted  language.  It  is  adversative  of  the  foregoing,  in- 
troducing the  expression  of  how  those  that  are  spared  in  the 
coming  destruction  receive  the  benefit,  or  who  they  are.     If  we 

'  Boehme  in  Bleek.  ''So  von  Hof.;  cotnp.  Matt.  viii.  8;  John  ix.  15. 

*  Comp.,  e,  g.,  xiii.  5.  *  Comp.  above  on  i.  5-13 ;  ii.  12,  13 ;  x.  5  sqq. 

5  So  Calvin  on  ver.  38  b.  *  xi.  32 ;  xiii.  19,  22,  23. 


X.  38.]  SHRINKING   BACK.  403 

construe:  "but  my  righteous  one  shall  live  by  faith,"  this 
answers  the  question :  how  shall  He  live  ?  This  is  the  same 
question  as  ii.  3,  "How  shall  we  escape?"  If  we  construe: 
"  but  my  righteous  one  by  faith  shall  live,"  it  answers  the  ques- 
tion :  who  shall  live  ?  The  meaning  in  either  case  comes  to 
the  same  thing.  Faith  is  the  saving  and  life-giving  quality. 
We  may  leave  the  expression  in  its  ambiguity.  Influenced  by 
the  sacred  language  he  adopts  for  expressing  the  truth,  the  Apostle 
says :  "  my  righteous  one,"  which  signifies  a  personal  complac- 
ency in  the  character  mentioned,  that  prepares  for  the  expression 
of  personal  displeasure  in  the  following  clause. 

Ver.  38  b.  And  if  he  shrink  back,  my  soul  hath  not  pleasure 
in  him. 

The  xai  =  and,  is  no  part  of  the  language  quoted  from  the 
LXX.,  but  the  Author's  own,  and  is  one  of  the  indications  that 
he  is  speaking  his  own  sentiment.  The  translation  of  the  LXX., 
which  is  exactly  reproduced  in  the  words  that  follow  the  And, 
is  no  proper  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  which  reads :  "  Behold 
his  soul  which  is  lifted  up  is  not  upright  in  him."  As  the 
Apostle  intends  no  citation,  we  need  not  ^  attempt  to  trace  any 
identity  of  sentiment  in  language  so  different.  The  xai  =  And, 
is  not  to  be  rendered  by :  "  yet,"  or  the  like,  as  if  our  clause 
expressed  the  notion  of  the  subject  of  the  foregoing  clause 
becoming  not  a  righteous  one,  and  devoid  of  faith.^  It  is  simply 
conjunctive,  adding  what  may  be,  and  is  expressed  of  the  same 
subject  as  there  described.  The  subject  of  urtoffrsiXrjrat  is  6  8Ua'.n<i 
of  the  foregoing  clause,  and  it  is  inadmissible  to  substitute  another 
subject,  e.  g.,  "  any  man."  ^  That  substitution  might  be  ascribed 
to  dogmatic  scruples  relating  to  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance 
of  the  regenerate.  But,  beside  its  being  inadmissible  to  save  the 
doctrine  by  straining  a  translation,  the  proper  understanding  of 
what  the  Apostle  actually  says  shows  that  the  fears  for  the  doc- 
trine are  groundless. 

The  verb  vTZiXTziXXw  occurs  beside  in  the  New  Testament  only 
Acts  XX.  20,  27  :  Gal.  ii.  12 ;  the  noun  vtzoittoXi^  only  in  the  fal- 
lowing verse.     The  words  denote  "  shrinking  back  "  or  "  flinch- 

'  As  Calvin.  *  Against  Del.  ^Version  of  1611. 


404  THE    APOSTLE    PETER   AN    EXAMPLE.  [x.  38. 

ing,"  though  timidity  or  similiar  motives,  thus  halting  about 
taking  a  position  that  demands  boldness.  Such  is  especially  the 
sense  of  the  verb  in  the  middle  voice.  It  needs  some  strong 
qualifying  phrase  to  give  it  the  meaning  of  turning  the  back  on 
anything,  e.  g,,  such  qualification  as  follows  the  noun  in  the  next 
verse.  It  is,  therefore,  forcing  the  word  to  take  it  as  expressing 
apostasy.  It  is  the  misunderstanding  of  the  foregoing  context 
that  has  led  readers  to  do  this.  As  predicate  here,  with  "  the 
righteous  one  "  for  subject,  only  very  compelling  reasons  could 
justify  us  in  understanding  it  to  express  apostasy.  We  have 
fortunately  an  exact  illustration  of  the  sense  in  which  itonriXXio 
may  be  predicated  of  a  righteous  one  by  faith.  It  is  in  Gal.  ii. 
11-14.  In  the  matter  of  Jewish  believers  recognizing  the  unity 
of  Gentile  believers  with  them  by  eating  with  them,  Peter  had 
conformed  in  Antioch,  till  some  came  from  James.  "  But  when 
they  came  he  drew  back  {p-KiffTeXXsv  iaonrJ)  and  separated  himself, 
fearing  them  that  were  of  the  circumcision."  For  this  Paul 
"  resisted  him  to  the  face,"  and  that  "  before  all "  the  disciples. 
With  what  a  sentiment  of  deep  displeasure  in  his  fellow  Apostle, 
Paul  did  this,  let  the  whole  epistle  to  the  Galatians  speak.  Peter's 
conduct  was  no  apostasy,  though  a  grave  fault  that  compromised 
"  the  truth  of  the  gospel."  Yet  it  was  conduct  that  could  pro- 
ceed to  what  would  be  "  a  shrinking  back  to  destruction,"  as 
expressed  in  ver.  39.  In  this  coincidence  of  thought,  and  of  the 
use  of  a  rare  word,  we  have  as  striking  a  proof  of  Paul's  being 
the  Author  of  our  epistle  as  that  furnished  by  finding  here  his 
favorite  text:  "The  just  by  faith  shall  live,"  quoted  exactly  in 
his  singular  manner.  The  latter  trait  has  ever  been  one  of  the 
greatest  difficulties  for  those  that  deny  his  authorship. 

The  appeal  to  Gal.  ii.  11-14,  shows,  then,  how  "shrinking 
back  "  may  be  predicated  of  one  described  as  a  "  righteous  one 
by  faith."  We  believe  it  is  so  predicated  here.  The  Apostle 
then  means :  if  such  a  person  shrinks  back  in  timidity,  as  Peter 
(and  "  the  rest  of  the  Jews "  in  Antioch  "  likewise  with  him, 
insomuch  that  even  Barnabas  was  carried  away  with  their  dis- 
simulation "),  as  if  one  were  to  be  justified  and  live  by  the  works 
of  the  law,  and  a  man  were  not  justified  by  faith,  and  the  righteous 


X.  38.]  AN   IMPRESSIVE   CONCLUSION.  405 

by  faith  alone  did  not  live.  In  such  an  one  he  says :  I  have  not 
pleasure,  and  what  he  means  by  that  is  best  illustrated  by  the 
displeasure  he  showed  in  the  case  we  appeal  to.  He  does  not 
affirm  that  "  he  has  no  pleasure  in  him."  ^  That  is  too  strong  a 
rendering,  and  is  occasioned,  as  is  the  rendering :  "  if  any  man 
draw  back,"  ^  by  the  notion  that  the  Apostle  means  apostasy. 
As  at  X.  6  vux  rjb8uxri<Ta<s  expresses  that  God  had  not  pleasure  in 
sacrifices  for  sins,  so  our  ooy.  eudaxsi  expresses  that  when  the 
righteous  one  by  faith,  who  should  have  the  boldness  (ver.  19) 
which  the  Apostle  imputes  to  his  readers,  shrinks  timidly  back 
to  use  ordinances  of  the  law  as  if  they  were  needful  to  his  feel- 
ing assured  that  he  "  shall  live,"  then  the  Apostle  "  has  not 
pleasure  in  him." 

And  well  may  he  say  so  in  concluding  an  exhortation  like  the 
present  (ver.  19-38)  that  follows  such  an  argument  as  that  of 
vii.  1 — X.  18,  We  say  concluding  words.  For  here,  it  appears 
to  us,  the  present  exhortation  concludes.  This  will  appear  when 
we  consider  the  import  of  the  following  verse  which  we  take  to 
be  the  preface  to  the  impressive  illustrative  discourse  on  faith 
comprised  in  chapter  xi.  But  viewing  our  verses  37,  38  as  a 
conclusion,  they  instantly  appear  most  fitting  as  such.  Then 
their  laconic  style,  and  the  impressive  use  of  the  first  person 
singular  have  peculiar  appropriateness.  As  a  conclusion  of  the 
treatment  of  the  main  subject  of  the  epistle  from  the  beginning 
to  the  present  point,  it  impresses  us  the  more  we  contemplate  it. 
It  applies  to  his  readers.  It  sums  up  in  one  clause  what  they 
ought  to  be,  viz.,  righteous  ones  by  faith  that  shall  live  ;  and, 
with  Apostolic  authority  and  benignity,  it  expresses  his  complac- 
ency in  them  a.s  such  by  the  significant :  "  my."  It  reflects  the 
condition  of  reproach  that  made  this  epistle  necessary.  Some 
were  shrinking  back.  To  such,  with  Apostolic  authority,  and 
firmness,  he  expresses  his  displeasure.  Yet  does  it,  not  as  to 
apostates  with  severity  ;  but  with  mildness,  as  to  those  concern- 
ing whom  he  is  persuaded  that  there  were  the  better  things  (vi.  9). 
Regarded  thus  as  a  conclusion,  our  vers.  37,  38  equal  in  rhetori- 

>  Versions  of  1611,  1881.  *  Version  1611. 


406  A   PREFACE.  [x.  39. 

cal  finish  anything  that  appears  in  this  most  polished  writing  of 
the  New  Testament. 

Ver.  39.  But  we  are  not  of  slirinking  back  to  destruction,  but 
of  faith  to  gaining  the  soul. 

We  prefer  here  the  rendering  of  the  margin  in  the  version  of 
1881,  though  it  is  stiff.  We  have  the  same  idiom  in  English, 
though  of  more  limited  application  than  in  the  Greek.  Comp. 
T?;?  68ob  ehac  Acts  ix.  2,  which  may  be  rendered  literally  and 
exactly.     Comp.  also  /apa.<i  xii.  11 ;  meunazo<i  Luke  ix.  25. 

The  close  connection  of  this  verse  with  what  ibllows  xi.  1  sqq. 
is  generally  recognized.^  But  it  has  the  manner  of  a  transition 
to  a  fresh  topic,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  observe  that  the 
faith,  here  so  emphatically  mentioned,  is  immediately  amplified 
and  glorified  in  a  very  remarkable  way.  So  that  our  verse  forms 
a  preface.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  its  character  as  such,  that 
it  has  a  logical  connection  with  what  immediately  precedes.  That 
connection  is  strongly  antithetical.  It  is  usual  to  read  as  if: 
shrinking  back  to  destruction  were  the  same  as  "  shrink  back  "  of 
ver.  38,  only  developed  to  its  full  significance,  and  thus,  as  if 
the  Apostle  denies  of  himself  and  readers,  what  is  there  imputed 
to  some  conditionally.  This,  however,  is  a  misapprehension.  If 
it  were  said :  if  a  righteous  man  doubts,  he  is  to  be  blamed  ;  but 
we  are  not  of  them  that  doubt  to  destruction,  it  would  be  under- 
stood that,  while  admitting  that  some  are  doubting,  it  is  affirmed 
that  it  is  not,  or  must  not  be  doubting  that  goes  the  length  that 
incurs  destruction.  And  were  it  added  :  we  are  of  faith  to  gain- 
ing the  soul,  the  aim  would  be  understood  to  be  to  strengthen 
the  faith.  Such  is  the  signification  of  our  present  verse.  We 
have  seen  that  shrinking  back  may  be  predicated  of  one  righteous 
by  faith,  as  doubt  and  timidity  may  be.^  We  have  seen  what 
that  may  be  by  a  most  exact  illustration,  which  shows  that  it  is 
something  far  short  of  apostasy,  and  farther  still  from  an 
obdurate  and  reprobate  condition.  In  the  light  of  that  meaning, 
what  is  now  affirmed  is  the  explicit  denial  that  shrinking  back  to 
the  degree  that  incurs  destruction   may  be   predicated  of  one 

^  Comp.  Calvin,  Del.,  Ebrard,  von  Hof.,  Davidson. 
*  Comp.  2  Cor.  iv.  9. 


xi.  1.]  FAITH    WINS    LIFE.  407 

righteous  by  faith.*  It  is  affirmed  in  the  most  expressive  way. 
The  Apostle  denies  for  himself  and  readers  any  relation  to  the 
thing  :  viz.,  shrinking  back  to  destruction.  He  says  :  we  are  not 
of  that  thing  ;  and  not :  we  are  not  of  them  that  do  that  thing. 
This  he  completes  by  the  positive  contrary  :  but  we  are  of  faith 
to  gaining  the  soul.^  And  this  is  to  say,  in  other  words  :  "  my 
righteous  one  by  faith  shall  live."  For  T:epi.T:oirj<jiv  (I'vp,^  expresses 
the  same  with  respect  to  a-wXeiav  that  tupia/.u)  il'oyr^v  does  to 
aTzoXXupx  4'0'/ri\>?     And  by  ^-u/i;  here  is  meant  life.* 

What  the  Apostle  means  by  destruction  and  life  must  relate  to 
the  same  thing  that  has  been  in  his  mind  from  x.  27,  viz.,  "  the 
judgment  a-coming  on  the  adversaries."  He  does  not  again  use 
the  word  d-wXsta;  and  he  uses  d-uX/.ufu  only  i.  11,  in  no  kindred 
connection.  We  must,  then,  infer  the  meaning  of  d-wXsia  from 
the  use  of  it  most  kindred  to  the  subject  before  us.  That  is 
found  in  the  discourse  of  Jesus  relating  to  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  who  rejected  their  Messiah.  Compare  in  the  parable  of 
the  "Wicked  Husbandmen,"  Matt.  xxi.  41 ;  and  of  the  ''Mar- 
riage Supper,"  Matt.  xxii.  7.  We  are  thus  confirmed  in  the  view 
maintained  above,  that  the  Apostle  has  in  mind  the  impending 
judgment  from  God  that,  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  signal- 
ized the  rejection  of  the  Jews  who  rejected  their  JMessiah,  the 
Son  of  God.  Shrinking  back  to  destruction  would  be  to  become 
involved  in  that.  To  be  of  faith  would  be  the  gaining  of  life  in 
that  judgment.' 

In  this  verse  the  Author  has  presented  the  truth  in  that 
abstract  form  *  that  is  appropriate  when  representing  a  subject 
that  is  to  be  amplified.  That  subject,  stated  still  more  abstractly, 
is :  those  that  are  of  faith  shrink  not  back  to  destruction,  but 
gain  life.  Agreeably  to  this  the  Apostle  proceeds  in  close  con- 
nection : 

XI.  1 .  Now  faith  is  the  assurance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  dem- 
onstration of  things  not  seen. 

'  Against  Del.,  Alford.  ^  Comp.  iv.  3. 

^  Comp.  van  Hof.,  and  Matt.  xvi.  25. 

*de  Wette;  comp.  1  Thess.  v.  9,  10;  against  Del.,  Alford. 

5  Comp.  1  Thess.  v.  1-11.  «Comp.  ix.  15. 


408  A    DEFINITION    OF    FAITH.  [xi.  1. 

It  is  debated  whether  this  may  be  called  a  definition  of  faith.' 
But  it  seems  to  us  that  the  question  only  arises  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  definition  given  here  does  not  cover  all  that  is  rep- 
resented of  faith  in  the  New  Testament.  Theological  definition 
attempts  such  comprehensiveness,  because  the  thing  defined  is,  for 
us,  all  that  it  there  appears  to  be  in  the  whole  New  Testament  or 
the  whole  Bible.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  this  could  not  be 
thought  of  by  an  Apostle  or  his  readers.  Thus  the  debate  is  out 
of  place.  A  theological  definition  the  present  verse  is  not,  as  we 
understand  and  attempt  such  definition.  To  demand  this  of  the 
Apostle,  or  apply  it  as  a  measure  of  the  perfection  of  what  he 
writes,  is  to  exact  a  prophetic  intuition  or  inspiration  exceeding 
anything  that  was  ever  claimed  for  inspiration.  Such  definition 
would  not  only  comprehend  all  that  had  been  said  and  written 
by  inspiration,  but  also  anticipate  all  that  was  afterward  to  be 
said  and  written,  that  the  definition  might  square  with  that. 
But  a  definition  of  faith  our  verse  is,  of  that  kind  that  wise  and 
penetrating  instructors  give  who  are  original  writers  and  pioneers 
in  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat.  "  Metaphysics "  is  thus 
very  differently  defined  by  an  immediate  disciple  of  Aristotle,  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  by  the  schoolmen,  by  Bacon,  and  by  Kant. 
A  good  definition  of  "  metaphysics  "  now  would  attempt  to  cover 
all  that  has  been  properly  comprehended  under  it;  and  that 
would  be  like  theological  definition. 

Our  Author's  definition  covers  the  phenomenon  as  it  appears 
in  the  relations  in  which  he  treats  of  faith.  It  is  so  far  com- 
plete, that  where  the  things  that  he  predicates  of  faith  are  not, 
there  is  no  faith.  The  present  aim  of  writing  may  be  expressed 
in  the  words  of  x.  35,  36  :  "  Cast  not  away  your  confidence, 
which  has  great  reward  ;  for  ye  have  need  of  patience,  that,  hav- 
ing done  the  will  of  God,  ye  may  receive  the  promise."  In  rela- 
tion to  this  aim  the  definition  is  exactly  to  the  point.  For  it 
affirms  that  faith  is  precisely  what  inspires  the  boldness  and  sus- 
tains the  patience  in  question.  It  affirms  what  faith  is,  not  what 
it  secures  to  us,  or  that  it  is  as  something  in  us.^  The  assurance 
and  demonstration  designated,  are  the  faith.     As  our  faith,  it  is 

1  See  Del.,  Alford.  ^  Against  Alford. 


Xi.  2.]  BELIEVING    A    WORD    OF    GOD.  409 

these  tilings  in  us.  All  that  has  been  said  in  our  epistle  about 
believing,  limits  the  notion  of  faith  to  believing  a  word  of  God 
revealing  something  to  come.  The  study  of  the  present  chapter 
shows  that  it  is  presented  there  with  the  same  limitation.  It  is 
not,  then,  any  or  all  faith  ^  in  general  that  we  are  invited  to  con- 
sider. It  is,  however,  faith  with  relation  to  any  declaration  by 
a  word  of  God  relating  to  anything  to  come,  and  not  to  one  par- 
ticular thing,  as,  c.  g.,  the  promise  of  salvation  by  a  Messiah. 
Accordingly,  the  personal  examples  adduced  in  what  follows 
exhibit  faith  in  relation  to  a  variety  of  things  revealed  to  them 
severally  by  a  word  of  God.  This  is  a  sufficiently  general 
notion  to  explain  the  mention  of  faith,  here  and  throughout  the 
chapter,  without  the  article.  The  double  form  of  our  definition  is 
due  to  the  fact,  that  in  the  situation  to  which  the  Apostle  speaks, 
and  accordingly  also,  in  the  examples  he  gives,  the  matter  for  faith 
is  not  always  something  that  can  be  properly  said  to  be  hoped  for, 
i.  e.,  in  the  sense  of  desire.  The  impending  destruction  was  not ; 
and,  in  the  case  of  Noah,  the  impending  flood  was  not.  But  such 
things  were  unseen  things,  and  faith  was  the  demonstration  of  them. 

In  illustration  of  what  he  has  affirmed  faith  to  be,  the  Apostle 
appeals  to  the  facts  of  sacred  history,  as,  indeed,  is  necessary, 
because  the  faith  in  question  relates  to  things  revealed  by  a  word 
of  God.     He  first  makes  the  appeal  in  a  comprehensive  way. 

Ver.  2.  For  in  this  the  ancients  had  witness  borne  to  them. 

By  the  ancients  are  meant  all  the  worthies  of  the  past  in  the 
history  of  God's  people,  as  the  following  enumeration  of  examples 
shows,  which  includes  even  those  mentioned  in  the  Apocrypha. 
MapTopsi<jf}ai'^  is  used  of  being  "  well  spoken  of,  or  well  reported 
of  to  others.^  The  same  must  be  its  meaning  here,  and  it  is  par- 
ticularly as  the  Scripture  testifies  in  their  case  that  the  Apostle 
appeals  to  them.  What  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  affirm,  con- 
cerning such  ancient  worthies  as  he  names,  is  on  the  ground  of 
what  is  represented  in  the  Scripture.  This  he  sometimes  does  in 
the  present  tense,  as  an  historical  present  of  the  record  before 
him.     Such  is  the  case  ver.  4  {napropouvro^-XaXeT;  also  the  perfect, 

^  Against  Alford.  "^  Version  of  1611,  ^="obtained  a  good  report." 

*  Ck>mp.  Acts  vi.  3  ;  x.  22 ;  xvi.  1 ;  xxii.  11. 


410  Maprupelff&ai.  [xi.  3. 

/jLs/jtaprupyjTat  ver.  5).  But  he  does  it  in  the  past  tense  also,  repre- 
senting the  testimony  as  having  been  given  on  the  spot.  Such 
is  the  case  here  and  ver.  4,  i/iapruprjt^.  As  it  is  not  uncommon 
for  the  English  reader  to  understand  that  the  testimony  was 
borne  to  the  ancient  worthies  themselves,  whereby  they  were  cer- 
tified and  made  confident  by  assurances  from  God  Himself  to 
them,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  what  has  just  been  noted. 
We  find,  indeed,  expositors  sometimes  expressing  themselves 
ambiguously  in  this  matter.  Thus  concerning  Abel :  "  he 
obtained  testimony  that  he  was  righteous  "  (Whitby) ;  "  some 
token  by  which  his  own  faith  was  strengthened  "  (Owen).  It 
does  not  appear,  however,  that  any  considerable  expositor  beside 
Bengel  has  purposely  so  interpreted  iJ.aprupeTai'^at.  It  is  not  of 
certifying  or  assuring  of  themselves  that  the  Author  speaks,  but 
of  the  ancients  being  attested  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  i.  e., 
well  reported  of,  and  that  tv  -iazet ;  for  raurrj  refers  to  -larL'}.  In 
this  means  "  in  the  domain,  or  region,  or  matter,  of  faith  :  "  so 
i-avA(7(i}  u'la^  av  touto),  1  Cor.  xi.  23.*  It  is  not  easy  to  define 
the  logical  relation  of  the  present  statement  to  the  foregoing  defi- 
nition of  faith  expressed  by  For.  It  is  rather  loose,  and  may  be 
equivalent  to  saying  :  just  this  faith  characterized  the  ancients  to 
whom  the  Scripture  gives  such  honorable  testimony.^  The  state- 
ment is  a  preface  that  leads  us  to  expect  something  to  be  added 
in  verification  of  it.     And  this  accordingly  follows  ver.  4  sqq. 

The  Apostle  adduces  his  examples  in  the  chronological  order 
of  Scripture.  We  see  no  reason  but  the  purpose  of  following 
that  order  for  introducing  here  the  affirmation  contained  in  verse 
3,  which  expresses  an  efiect  of  faith  in  us,  and  not  in  the  ancients. 
The  matter  referred  to  occupies  the  foremost  place  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. As  something  to  be  apprehended  by  faith,  it  concerns  all 
generations  alike.  The  briefest  way  to  express  that  all  persons 
of  faith  of  all  time  have  apprehended  this  truth,  as  faith  must, 
is  to  say,  as  the  Author  does  :  hy  faith  we  perceive.  To  say  : 
"  by  faith  they  perceived,"  would  be  too  narrow  for  a  truth  so 
universal. 

Ver.  3.     By  faith  we  understand  that  the  ages  have  been  pre- 

^Alford.  *Comp.  Liin. 


xi.  3.]  BY    FAITH    AVE    UNDERSTAND.  411 

pared  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  not  out  of  things  apparent  hath 
that  which  is  seen  been  made. 

Against  the  rendering  '  that  connects  the  /nj  with  <pat\>oiii'^(uv  = 
"things  not  apparent,"  see  Alford.  It  belongs  to  the  whole 
clause.^  The  £;'?  ru  =iso  that,  is  telic  ^  and  not  ecbatic,^  and  makes 
the  clause  expressive  of  intention.  By  tou?  aiwva^  we  understand, 
as  at  i.  2,  not  the  material  creations  merely,  but  these  as  they 
are  related  to  periods  of  time,  and  so  as  having  history.^  Thus, 
as  an  expression,  it  includes  the  visible,  material  world,  but  de- 
notes more  than  that  world  as  made  once  and  so  continuing  as 
made.  It  denotes  that  world  with  all  the  changes  that  constitute 
its  phenomena,  particularly  as  relates  to  mankind.  The  notion 
of  many  worlds  in  the  modern  astronomical  sense  is  an  ana- 
chronism when  applied  to  our  Author's  words. 

It  is  here  affirmed  that  the  ages  were  prepared  or  disposed 
{y-aTTipziaf^ai)  by  the  word  of  God,  so  that  what  is  seen  has  not 
been  made  (ytyo>ivm  =  "  come  about ")  from  things  apparent. 
The  point  of  this  statement  is  not  that  the  ages  were  prepared  by 
the  word  of  God,  but  that  they  were  so  made  with  the  intent 
here  expressed.®  This  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  observation,  nor 
is  it  something  merely  apprehended  as  a  thing  we  read,  say  in 
scripture.  It  is  something  we  understand,  if  received  by  the 
mind  at  all.  Thus  the  Apostle  appropriately  writes :  viwu/iev. 
And  this  understanding  we  have  by  faith. 

This  grammatical  and  logical  interpretation  of  the  verse  is 
readily  ascertained.  But  the  thing  we  are  said  to  understand  is 
difficult  of  explanation.  Are  ipav^iizva  and  ro  [ikt-otiz^jo-j  syno- 
nyms, by  which,  for  elegance  sake,  the  Author  avoids  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  same  sound  ?  ^  Or  do  they  denote  different  things  ? 
The  former  is  correct.  The  latter  notion  offers  no  meaning  ex- 
cept to  such  as  see  in  our  verse  a  cropping  out  of  Alexandrian 
philosophy  in  the  Author.*  All  that  we  have  learned  of  the 
Author  opposes  our  resorting  to  such  aid  in  interpreting  him. 

*  Of  Chrys. ;  Del.,  etc.  *  von  Hof. ;  comp.  2  Thess.  ii.  2. 
'  Lun.,  Del.,  von  Hof.  *  Alford,  etc. 

^So  Alford;  Moll;  Farrar,  "Early  days  of  Christianity,"  chap,  xviii.  §  8. 

*  von  Hof.  '  So  Riehm.  p.  57.  ^  Comp.  Del. 


412  THE   SOURCE  OF   ALL   THINGS.  [xi.  3. 

What  is  the  intention  here  expressed  ?  "  The  meaning  is  :  so  that, 
according  to  the  counsel  of  God,  the  fact  was  guarded  against, 
that  what  is  seen  should  issue  from  things  apparent,  consequently 
mankind  from  the  beginning  would  be  remanded  to  the  necessity 
of  faith."  ^  As  for  the  things  in  the  Apostle's  mind  in  so  ex- 
pressing himself,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  should  mean 
some  things  more  particularly  than  things  universally  ;  and  what 
they  might  be  we  may  infer  from  the  preceding  part  of  the 
epistle.  His  reference  to  ages  [alibva)  ^  has  been  in  connection 
with  the  history  of  salvation.  His  definition  of  faith  makes  it 
the  demonstration  of  things  hoped  for,  but  not  seen  (ver.  1,  comp. 
ver.  7) ;  thus  when  faith  and  hope  cea-^e,  the  same  things  will  be 
things  seen.  His  use  of  the  words  "  faith  "  and  "  believing  " 
has  been  exclusively  with  reference  to  "  the  world  to  come,"  ^  and 
the  "  promise  "  of  salvation.*  It  is  safest,  and  it  is  sufficient  to 
interpret  the  present  meaning  from  these  elements.  The  Apostle 
says  we  understand,  with  particular  reference  to  himself  and 
readers  as  in  the  foregoing  chapter.  With  respect  to  the  ages, 
what  is  understood  is,  that  what  is  seen  has  not  come  about  from 
what  is  apparent.  This  expresses  that  the  potencies  of  things 
seen  were  not  in  preceding  phenomena.  They  originated  in  the 
word  of  God,  the  word  of  power.  This  makes  the  word  of  God 
the  sole  reliance  in  reference  to  all  things,  things  seen  now,  and 
things  to  be  seen.  This  we  understand  by  faith,  which  means, 
on  the  assurance  received  from  God  and  believed.  This  does  not 
mean  only  the  word  of  revelation  concerning  the  creation  (Gen.  i.), 
but  that,  together  with  all  that  in  scripture  gives  the  same  assur- 
ance. Taking  :  the  worlds  in  the  sense  already  explained,  not 
only  the  word  of  God  making  the  earth,  but  the  same  word 
upholding  it  and  disposing  its  history,  is  necessary  to  give  this 
assurance.*  With  this  understanding  of  our  verse,  we  find  it 
mentions  our  faith  in  the  same  way  as  in  the  instances  that  follow. 
It  is  not  a  faith  with  reference  to  what  has  happened,  and  thus 
a  consequence,  while  the  following  instances  mention  faith  as  an 
antecedent  to  something  done  by  means  of  it.      Our  faith  also  has 

1  Lun.  M.  2 ;  vi.  5 ;  ix.  26.  '  vi.  5  ;  x.  38.  *  iv.  2 ;  vi.  12. 

*  Comp.  2  Pet.  iii.  6,  7,  where  '^6yu  is  used  as  pTjfmTt  here. 


xi.  4.]  Abel's  more  excellent  sacrifice.  413 

for  its  consequence  that,  so  understanding  how  the  ages  have 
come  about,  we  live  by  faith. 

Ver.  4.  By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacri- 
fice than  Cain,  by  which  he  was  borne  witness  to  that  he  was  right- 
eous, God  bearing  witness  in  respect  of  his  gifts ;  and  by  it  he 
being  dead  yet  speaks.     Comp.  Gen.  iv.  3  sqq. 

When  the  Apostle  says  that  it  was  by  faith  that  Abel  did  as 
here  recited,  it  is  precisely  as  in  ver.  3,  he  says :  "  by  faith  we  under- 
stand ; "  that  is,  it  is  his  affirmation,  and  not  the  recital  of  what 
another,  (c.  g.,  the  Scripture  in  the  present  case)  affirms.  The 
same  thing  is  true,  and  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  in  all  the  sub- 
sequent cases.  What  he  affirms  in  the  present  and  every  other 
case  is  on  the  ground  of  what  the  Scripture  or  other  sources  testify 
of  the  persons.  That  testimony  is  not  directly,  that  Abel  or  the 
others  had  faith,  much  less  that  they  had  faith  in  precisely  the  way 
described  ver.  1 .  But  in  view  of  what  is  testified,  the  AjDostle  says 
it  was  by  faith  that  such  things  were  so  in  their  case.'  The 
scriptural  facts  in  Abel's  case  are  :  («)  he  offered  a  more  excellent 
sacrifice  than  Cain.  It  is  not  said  here  in  what  respect  it  was 
better.  It  vas  better,  as  the  account  shows  ;  and  the  Apostle 
means  to  affirm,  not  that  faith  made  the  sacrifice  better,  but  that 
by  faith  Able  offi^red  what  was  a  better  sacrifice.  (6)  "  God  bore 
witness  to  him  in  respect  to  his  gifts  that  he  was  righteous."  The 
fact  is  plainly  signified  Gen.  iv.  4,  though  the  manner  of  it  is 
not.  We  see  from  /mprupim,  used  here  both  actively  and  passively 
in  what  sense  it  is  meant.  God  is  the  active  subject  in  both,  and 
gives  testimony  of  something  (here  righteousness)  concerning  a 
person  (Abel),  the  testimony  being  directed  to  others  (in  this 
case  Cain,  in  the  first  instance),  that  they  might  know  how  God 
regarded  the  person  to  whom  he  bore  witness.  It  is  a  mistake 
to  suppose  ^  the  Apostle  refers  to  how  Jesus  bore  witness  to 
"righteous  Abel"  (Matt,  xxiii.  25).  Nor  docs  he  mean  the  tes- 
timony as  a  matter  of  record,  which  is  testimony  to  us.  He 
means  the  testimony  as  it  was  given  on  the  spot.  This  he  says 
Able  obtained  by  faith  (dC  r;?).  When  he  says  the  testimony  was 
"that  he  was  righteous,"  that,  as  the  :  by  faith,  is  the  Apostle's 

'  So  von  Ilof.  ^  "With  Owen,  etc. 


414  BY   FAITH   ENOCH    WAS   TRANSLATED.  [xi.  5. 

affirmation,  not  the  Scripture's.  And  the  statement  shows  that 
the  thought  of  x.  38,  "  the  righteous  one  by  faith,"  is  retained  in 
the  present  representations,  (c)  And  being  dead  lie  yet  speaks. 
This  is  the  most  extraordinary  of  all  the  present  statements. 
The  reference  is  to  the  record  Gen.  iv.  10  "  The  voice  of  thy 
brother^s  blood  crieth  unto  me  from  the  ground."  The  present 
tense :  speaks  is  the  present  of  that  narrative  and  graphic  like 
the  present  participial  imprupouvro^  preceding.  The  meaning  is 
that  Abel  speaks  (spoke)  to  God,  though  dead,^  and  not  that  he 
speaks  and  has  spoken  to  succeeding  generations  in  the  Scripture. 
This,  the  Apostle  says  again,  Abel  did  by  faith  {dC  auT-7j'>).  Tlie 
meaning  is  that,  dead  as  well  as  alive,  Abel  was  an  object  of  con- 
cern to  God  and  in  communion  with  him.^  Faith,  the  assurance 
of  things  hoped  for,  the  demonstration  of  things  not  seen,  could 
bring  that  about !  What  an  illustration  of  the  Apostle's  saying  : 
"  we  are  of  faith  unto  the  gaining  of  the  soul ;  and  the  righteous 
one  by  faith  shall  live  !  "  ^ 

Ver.  5.  By  faith  Enoch  was  translated  so  as  not  to  see  death, 
and  he  was  not  found  because  God  translated  him.  For  before  the 
translation  he  has  been  borne  witness  to  that  he  had  been  well- 
pleasing  to  God.     Comp.  Gen.  v.  10,  21-24. 

In  the  foregoing  illustration,  faith  made  Abel  do  something. 
In  this,  the  faith  of  Enoch  makes  God  do  something.  The  dif- 
ference is  more  in  appearance  than  in  substance.  Chrysostom 
bridges  the  hiatus  in  thought  thus  :  "  How  was  Enoch  translated 
by  faith  ?  because  his  pleasing  God  was  the  cause  of  the  transla- 
tion, and  faith  was  the  cause  of  his  pleasing  God."  The  Tpd  t?;? 
;j.eTa''^rj(T£(u?  is  to  be  taken  locally,  with  reference  to  the  order  of 
the  Scripture  record  as  representing  the  order  of  the  facts.  Be- 
fore it  is  recorded  that  he  was  translated,  it  is  recorded  that  he 
pleased  God.  To  this  the  Author  refers  as  to  testimony  accord- 
ing to  the  norm  of  ver.  2.  Hence  the  perfect  tense.  Well- 
pleasing  to  God  is  according  to  the  LXX,  that  so  renders  the 
Hebrew :  "  walked  with  God,"  Gen.  v.  24.  "  It  is,  however, 
plain  that  the  Apostle  knew  the  original  text,  from  his  adding  : 

Yer.  6.     Now  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  be  well-pleasing 

'  Calvin,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Liin.  ^  Co^ap.  Calvin.  »  x.  39,  38. 


xi.  6,  7.]  RIGHTEOUS   NOAH.  415 

[unto  him],  for  he  that  cometh  to  God,  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
[that]  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  seek  after  him. 

"  Both  T.fuxsiityzaUa'.  -tu  Hzio  and  ixXr^rt'vj  ah-ov  are  occasioned 
by  the  Hebrew :  '  he  walked  with  God,'  and  not  by  the 
LXX  rendering  :  '  he  was  well-pleasing  unto  God.'  "  ^  That  he 
is:  the  present  text  is  "the  only  place  where  the  existence  of  God 
is  thus  expressed!"^  The  coming- to  God  meant  here,  is  that 
approach  or  drawing  near  for  worship  that  has  frequent  mention 
in  our  epistle.  Enoch's  walking  M'ith  God,  by  which  he  was 
well-pleasing  unto  God,  was  by  faith  that  showed  itself  in  the 
manner  here  described. 

Ver.  7  a.  By  faith  Noah  having  been  warned  [of  God],  fearing^ 
about  the  things  not  yet  seen,  prepared  an  ark  for  salvation  of  his 
house.     Comp.  Gen.  vi.  13  sqq. 

The  translation  just  given  ^  needs  no  defense  on  grammatical 
grounds.*  The  logical  reasons  in  favor  of  it  outweigh  the  ryth- 
mical in  favor  of  connecting :  about  things  not  yet  seen,  with 
having  been  warned.  The  word  rendered  warned  has  a  pregnant 
religious  sense,  involving  the  notion  of  God  as  the  one  who  warns, 
like  the  word  "  revealed,"  which  involves  the  notion  of  God  as 
the  revealer.  Thus  yjn^ii.aTi.<y'iti<i  is  appropriately  rendered : 
being  warned  of  God.  The  article  in  r.zpi.  twi/  iizSi-w  [iU-ophio-^ 
has  no  force  wdien  this  phrase  is  connected  with  -/p7^i).a.r.\  conse- 
quently, it  is  ignored  where  that  construction  is  used.^  But  con- 
strued with  euXa[iriff£i<;,  it  has  its  definite  force  as  relating  to  the 
substance  of  the  warning. 

The  fitness  of  this  reference  to  Noah,  to  the  subject  of  faith,  as 
described  ver.  1,  is  quite  obvious.  In  the  present  words  his 
assurance  of  the  coming,  yet  unseen  things,  was  evidenced  by  his 
fearing  them,  and  this  made  him  build  the  ark  as  he  was  directed. 
This  was  by  faith,  says  the  Apostle. 

To  this  he  adds  a  double  comment,  precisely  in  the  fashion  of 
ver.  4,  when  he  .speaks  of  Abel.  In  this  he  notes  two  conse- 
quences of  Noah's  faith.  For  8i  i^  relates  to  faith  and  not  to 
the  ark. 

»  von  Plof.  2  de  Wette.  3  g^  ^^^  jj^f 

*  Cora.  Alford,  who  rejects  it ;  and  versions  of  1611,  1881. 

*  Versions  of  1611,  1881. 


416  abeaham's  obedience.  [xi.  8,  9. 

Ver.  7  6.     By  which  he  condemned  the  world,  and  of  the 
righteousness  which  is  according  to  faith  he  became  heir. 

As  the  consequence  of  Noah's  faith,  the  condemning  of  the 
world  (xotT/jjr,)  was  in  the  fact  that  he  believed  what  was 
announced  to  him,  while  others  to  whom  he  proclaimed  it  did 
not  believe.^  The  additional  consequence,  viz.,  he  became  heir, 
etc.,  is  the  Apostle's  comment  on  the  familiar  fact  that  Noah  is 
the  first  in  Scripture  to  be  called  "  righteous "  (Gen.  vi.  9).^ 
In :  heir  of  the  righteousness  he  chooses  an  expression  that 
denotes  actual  and  inalienable  possession,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
that  what  is  possessed  comes  not  out  of  himself,  but  from  God. 
Saying  :  the  righteousness  was  :  according  to  faith,  expresses  that 
one's  being  what  God  would  have  him  is  found  only  where  faith 
is.  In  the  case  of  Noah  it  came  about  by  nothing  else  than  by 
his  regarding  what  God  revealed,  to  be  just  what  it  was  said  to 
be.^  Thus  it  is  expressly  interpreted  that,  not  by  works,  but  by 
faith  Noah  was  the  righteous  man  he  is  called  in  Scripture. 
Also  this  notion  of  righteousness  is  mentioned  as  one  familiar  to 
the  readers,  which  sounds  much  like  the  Apostle  Paul. 

Ver.  8.  By  faith  Abraham  being  called,  obeyed  to  go  out  into  a 
place  which  he  was  to  receive  for  an  inheritance ,  and  went  out 
not  knowing  where  he  goes.  See  Gen.  xii.  1,  4  ;  Acts  vii.  2,  3. 
This  description  is  evidently  composed  with  the  design  of  giv- 
ing in  relief  the  traits  of  Abraham's  call  and  obedience  that 
justify  the  Apostle  in  ascribing  Abraham's  conduct  to  faith. 
Only  an  assurance  of  something  hoped  for,  and  a  demonstration 
of  what  was  not  seen  could  explain  Abraham's  obedience  to  such 
a  call.  Abraham's  faith  was  that  assurance  and  demonstration. 
Yer.  9.  By  faith,  having  taken  up  his  abode  in  tents  in  a  land 
of  promise  as  a  foreign  [land],  he  was  a  sojourner,  with  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  co-heirs  of  the  same  promise. 

Uapouioj  is  never  used  with  £t>,  whereas  7.aTouiu)  is  used  both 
with  eh  and  ^.  This  usage  constrains  us  to  connect  -a.p(hy.r^av^ 
with /asra  7(7.,  and  to  construe  ei'?  p7v,  etc.,  with  -/.aroty-i^nat;^  as  a 
parenthesis.*     It  gives  excellent  sense.     Again  it  is  evident  that 

1  von  Hof  ;  comp.  2  Peter  ii.  5 ;  John  iii.  18.  ^  Cbmp.  Alford. 

»  von  Hof. ;  Riehni,  p.  731  sq.  *  So  von  Hof. 


xi.   10.]  THE   CITY    FOUNDED    BY   GOD.  417 

there  is  here  a  studied  representation  of  the  facts,  so  as  to  make 
it  obvious  at  a  glance  that  the  Apostle  is  correct  in  saying,  this 
was  by  faith.  "So  it  is  said  that  he  took  up  his  abode  in  tents, 
thus  as  a  wanderer  in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  land  that  was 
not  his  but  another's,  and  accordingly  lived  as  a  stranger  with 
Isaac  and  Jacob." ' 

Ver.  10.  For  lie  waited  for  the  city,  which  hath  its  foundations, 
whose  [/.  c,  the  city's]  builder  and  maker  is  God. 

This  verse  explains  the  phenomenal  manner  of  life  just 
described,  and  shows  how  it  was  an  example  of  faith  as  defined 
ver.  1,  by  designating  what  was  the  unseen  and  hoped  for  thing, 
on  the  assurance  of  which  Abraham  lived.  He  waited  for  the 
city.  On  Ixdi-^oiiat  see  x.  12.  In  row?  ^^iieXiou^^-  its  foundations,^ 
the  article  has  the  force  of  a  possessive  pronoun.  It  is  usual  to  un- 
derstand by  city  here  the  "  heavenly  Jerusalem  "  mentioned  xii. 
22.'  It  is  quite  consistent  with  the  Author's  style  to  represent 
New  Testament  notions  under  Old  Testament  forms,  of  which 
we  have  had  example  iii.  7  .  iv.  1 1  ;  and  also  to  represent  the 
essence  of  an  Old  Testament  act  in  its  New  Testament  form,  of 
which  we  have  example  vers.  25,  26.  No  scruples  about  its 
being  "  unhistorical,"  *  then,  need  debar  us  from  concurring  in 
the  interpretation  just  mentioned.  But  as  there  is  a  plain  mean- 
ing expressed  by  the  words  of  our  verse  that  is  perfectly  "  his- 
torical," i.  e.,  suited  to  the  times  of  Abraham,  tliat  must  claim 
precedence.  Grotius,  and  later  Ebrard,  understand  our  verse  to 
mean,  that  Abraham  waited  for  God  to  establish  a  state  in  the 
promised  land  wherein  the  present  sojourning  in  tents  would  be 
exchanged  for  dwelling  in  a  city.  In  this  view,  as  we  have  now 
expressed  it  generally,  ^vithout  the  amplifications  of  Grotius,  and 
particularly  of  Ebrard,  we  concur.  The  expression :  whose 
builder  and  maker  is  God,  denotes  that  the  city  is  all  of  God  and 
of  no  other.'  The  Author  says :  the  city ;  and  the  definite  arti- 
cle is  due  to  the  definite  notion  of  a  city  presented  in  that  predi- 
cate, viz.,  the  one  wholly  of  God's  making.  The  Patriarch 
waited  for  such  a  city,  with  its  foundations,  this  trait  being  added 

'  von  Hof.  2  von  Hof.;  comp.  Kiihner  Gram.  IT.,  p.  515. 

'  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Alford,  Davidson,  etc.  *  Ebrard.  ^  Grotius. 

27 


418  EVEN    SARAH    COUNTED    HIM    FAITHFUL.  [xi.  11. 

to  mark  the  contrast  with  the  tent  habitations  that  were  without 
these.  He  waited  for  the  city  there,  in  that  land  where  he  and 
Isaac  and  Jacob  lived  in  such  different  fashion.  He  waited  for 
God  to  bring  it  about.  It  is  faith,  and  not  the  object  of  faith, 
or  contents  of  what  was  believed,  that  is  the  important  mat- 
ter in  all  these  representations.  The  objects  differ  with  the 
examples.  To  be  established  in  a  city-habitation  in  Canaan  was 
as  much  a  matter  of  faith  to  the  Patriarchs,  as  the  waiting  for 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem  is  for  us.  Nor  can  we  distinguish  in 
respect  to  the  degree  of  faith  in  the  two  cases. 

It  does  not  seem  obvious  at  a  glance,  why  the  Apostle  should 
use  the  word  city  to  express  the  notion  of  actually  possessing  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  settlement  there  in  permanent  habitations. 
But  this  is  owing  to  the  other  and  less  natural  interpretation, 
having  diverted  attention  from  the  one  we  are  commending,  and 
not  from  anything  far-fetched  in  the  latter.  When  (Gen.  xxii. 
17)  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  Abraham,  after  the  trial  of 
offering  Isaac,  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  renewed  in  terms 
more  explicit  than  ever  before.*  On  that  occasion  it  was  signifi- 
cantly said  :  "  And  thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  his  enemies." 
This  is  rendered  by  the  LXX  :  "  And  thy  seed  shall  inherit  the 
cities  of  their  adversaries"  (rd?  noXzii;  twv  uTrevavrt'o/v).  When 
we  compare  with  this  the  words  of  Ps.  cvii.  4,  7,  36,  "  They 
wandered  in  the  wilderness  in  a  solitary  way  ;  they  found  no  city 

to    dwell    in  "    (odov  xoXew^  xarot/.r^Tr^fjiou  oox  euf/ir^^,    WO    SCC   that  a 

Scriptural  mode  of  conception,  and  of  actual  expression,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  possession  and  settlement  of  Canaan,  are  reflected 
in  the  language  of  our  verse,  even  to  ttoXc?  in  the  singular.  This 
makes  the  interpretation  we  commend  the  obvious  one,  while  that 
which  supposes  the  Apostle  to  refer  to  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  is 
far-fetched. 

Ver.  11.  By  faith  even  Sarah  herself  received  power  for  foun- 
dation of  a  seed,  and  beyond  the  time  of  age,  since  she  counted  him 
faithful  who  had  promised. 

There  seems  no  reason  why  the  xat  should  merely  conjoin  the 
present  example  to  the  one  preceding,  while  all  the  other  instances 

^  Ck)mp.  above  on  vi.  13-15. 


xi.  12.]  THE    PROMISE    FUJ.FIIXED.  419 

are  without  it/  It  is  therefore,  proper  to  translate  it :  even. 
The  £1?  xaTa/SoXijy  ffTrip/xaro?  is  ail  uuusiial  expression,  and  in  a  lit- 
eral translation  :  "  for  deposition  of  seed,"  ^  is  ambiguous.  It  is 
agreeable  both  to  the  common  use  of  xazaiSid-yj  and  to  Scriptural 
ideas,  to  understand  the  meaning  to  be  :  "  founding  a  posterity,"  ^ 
and  such  we  suppose  is  the  Apostle's  meaning. 

The  sacred  record,*  on  whose  good  report  of  the  ancients  (ver. 
2)  the  Apostle  founds  his  statements,  represents  the  ancestress  of 
the  chosen  seed  chiefly  in  moments  of  little  faith.  This  is  not 
to  be  interpreted  by  us  that  she  had  no  faith.  It  was  not  so 
by  her  posterity,  as  the  verse  before  us  sliows,'  It  is,  however, 
a  reason  for  the  Apostle  saying :  even  Sarah  herself,^  as  if,  in 
citing  Sarah  as  an  example  of  faith,  he  were  doing  something 
that  might  be  unexpected.  We  may,  recalling  the  unusual 
expression  of  iv.  2,  ;irj  (Tuvxexepair/iivoui  rfj  TZi'ffrsi,  regard  Sarah  as 
an  example  of  the  contrary,  viz.,  as  one  combined  by  faith  with 
Abraham  who  heard  tl.e  word  of  promise  with  profit ;  and  so 
that  word  profited  her  also.  She  accounted  him  faithful  that  had 
promised.     Comp.  x.  23. 

Ver.  1 2.  "Wherefore,  also,  there  were  bom'  of  one,  and  that  effete, 
as  the  stars  of  heaven  in  multitude,  and  as  the  sand  which  is  by 
the  sea  shore,  innumerable. 

From  one  means  Abraham.  His  being  deadened  with  respect 
to  pro-creation  is  emphasized  in  the  same  way,  and  by  using  the 
same  word  Rom.  iv.  19  ;  in  which  we  see  a  proof  that  Paul 
writes  here.  The  consequences  of  faith  in  his  case  with  Sarah 
combined  are  expressed  in  the  terms  of  the  original  promise 
(Gen.  xiii.  16  ;  xv.  5 ;  xxii.  17  sqq.),  thus  giving  the  full  signi- 
ficance to  the  foregoing  expression :  "  she  counted  him  faithful 
W'ho  had  promised." 

"  The  Author  has  pointed  out  a  threefold  faith  (vers.  8-12)  in 
the  history  of  Abraham  and  Sarah ;  faith  that  made  them  obe- 
dient to  an  incomprehensible  call  of  God  ;  faith  that  made  them 

'  The  Kal  of  ver.  20,  Lach,  Alford,  W.  and  H.  is  doubtful. 
'See  Alford.  *So  Liin.,  von  Hof.,  etc  *  Comp.  Gen.  viii.  12,  15. 

*  Comp.  1  Pet.  iii.  6.  *  With  Liin.,  against  Del.,  Alford,  von  Hof. 

""EyevvT/^riaav,  Recept,  Tisch.,  W.  and  H. 


420  ALL   THESE    DIED    ACCORDING    TO    FAITH.  [xi.  13. 

content  with  a  present  state  of  thing  not  in  accordance  with  the 
promise ;  faith  which  on  the  word  of  God  accepted  as  certain 
what  was  otherwise  impossible.  Now,  in  vers.  13-16,  he  dis- 
plays faith  that  consoled  itself  by  a  promised  future  beyoiwl 
death.  He  affirms  of  all  these  named,  of  Abraham  and  Sarah, 
of  Isaac  and  Jacob  : "  ^ 

Ver.  13.  According  to  faith  all  these  died  not  receiving  the 
promises,  but  seeing  and  greeting  (aorist  participle)  them  afar  off, 
and  confessing  that  they  were  strangers  and  sojourners  upon  the 
land. 

The  Apostle  does  not  say :  by  faith  (jtiffTsi),  but  according  to 
faith  [xard) ;  meaning,  as  consisted  with  their  relation  to  the 
promises,  so  they  died.  The  participles  in  the  aorist  do  not 
describe  their  attitude  to  the  promises  merely  in  the  act  of  dying, 
but  as  they  lived  and  saw  the  end  of  life  approach.  By  the 
promises,  in  the  plural,  is  meant  what  God  promised,  as  just 
referred  to,  ver.,  11,  12,  but  regarded  as  repeated  to  tlie  three 
Patriarchs.  The  totality  of  it  comprehended  the  possession  of 
Canaan,  settled  by  a  countless  posterity,  and  destined  to  bless  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  with  the  blessing  of  Abraham.  They  did 
not  receive  {xuij.iffdij.t^'oif  what  was  promised  in  the  sense  of 
actual  fulfillment.'  They  knew  that  fulfillment  was  distant,  but 
they  regarded  it  as  sure.  They  even  saw  the  promises,  by  faith 
of  course  (ver.  1),  and  were  as  sailors  that  see  the  mountain  tops 
of  their  distant  native  land  as  they  approach  its  shore,  and  greet 
the  lowlands  and  homes  that  are  still  invisible  as  if  they  saw 
them.  Quum  procul  obscuros  colles  humilemque  viderem  Itallam 
.  .  .  Italiam  laeto  socii  clamore  sahitant.* 

In  that  state  they  confessed  that  they  were  strangers  and 
sojourners,  by  which  is  expressed  that  they  understood  their  situ- 
ation with  all  its  prospects,  and,  so  far  from  being  ignorant  of  it, 
acquiesced  in  it  and  freely  declared  it  to  others.^  Their  existence 
was  not  a  continual  disappointment  of  hope  deferred.  It 
deserves  to  be  noted  that  TtapsTzidrj/jLoi  means  sojourners,  that  is 

»  von  Ilof.  2  Tisch,  Treg.,  W.  and  H. 

»  Comp.  on  vi.  12,  14.  *  Virg.  Aen.  iii.  522. 

'  Comp.  Gen.  xxiii.  4 ;  xxviii.  4 ;  xlvii.  9. 


xi.  14.]  STRANGERS   AND  SOJOURNERS.  421 

"  pilgrims  "  in  the  old  sense  of  that  word,  as  the  derivative  and 
equivalent  of  pcregrmus.  The  notion  of  one  travelling  through 
a  land  to  a  destination,  such  as  a  sacred  place  of  worship  or  a 
distant  home,  is  no  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  the 
more  important  to  notice  this,  as  it  is  not  uncommon  to  take  this 
meaning  and  carry  it  to  the  interpretation  of  the  next  verse, 
which  speaks  of  seeking  a  country.  It  is  not  necessary  to  under- 
stand i7:\  r^9  y7^<;  any  more  universally  than  yT^v  ri^9  lTraYyzUa<i\eT. 
9.  It  is  called  by  Isaac  speaking  to  Jacob  :  "  the  land  wherein 
thou  art  a  stranger"  {rr^v  yT^v  ryjg  napoixijffea)^  aou)}  There,  in  the 
land  where  they  were  actually  strangers,  they  confessed  what  they 
were.  For  the  antithesis:  "heavenly  country,"  ver.  16,  for 
which  this  prepares,  this  meaning  of  the  land  is  enough,  even  if: 
"  heavenly  country  "  mean,  in  heaven  itself. 

In  proof  of  the  intelligent  acquiescence  in  their  condition  that 
he  has  ascribed  to  the  Patriarchs,  the  Apostle  adds : 

Ver.  1 4.  For  they  that  say  such  things  make  manifest  that 
they  seek  [their]  native  land. 

This  is  not  a  direct  inference  from  their  calling  themselves 
strangers  and  sojourners  in  the  land,  or  interpretation  of  those 
words,  as  is  commonly  thought.  It  would  be  too  much  to  infer 
from  that  alone.  It  would  not,  indeed,  if  they  confcvssed  them- 
selves "pilgrims  "  in  the  present  meaning  of  that  word.  Where 
are  you  going?  is  the  first  question  asked  of  one  that  calls  him- 
self a  pilgrim.  But  a  Gypsy,  who  is  no  pilgrim,  yet  is  a  stranger 
and  sojourner,  is  not  so  questioned.  Thus,  as  we  have  intimated 
above,  the  translation  "pilgrims"  is  misleading,  and  is  therefore 
to  be  avoided.  By  presenting  too  immediate  a  premise,  not  war- 
ranted by  the  word  so  translated,  it  obscures  to  the  reader  the 
actual  reasoning  of  the  Author.  The  present  verse  is  an  affirmation, 
and  not  an  inference  from  what  the  Patriarchs  confessed.  The 
For  does  not  introduce  an  inference,  but  a  reason  in  support  of  a 
foregoing  statement,  viz.,  that  those  who  "  confessed,"  etc.,  saw 
and  greeted  the  promise  afar  off.  By  this  they  made  manifest 
(most  fitting  expression  in  such  a  connection)  that  they  sought 
their  native  land.      But  the  Author  expresses   himself  in  the 

»  Gen.  xxviii.  4,  LXX. 


422  THEY   DESIRE  A   BETTER   COUNTRY.      [xi.  15,  56. 

present  tense,  graphically,  as  contemplating  the  Patriarchs,  with 
their  expectant  manner  and  pious  confession,  as  they  are  there 
for  every  reader  of  scripture.  Thus  he  directs  our  attention  to 
them  with  a  view  to  the  inference  he  is  about  to  make  (i-Dv  di  ver. 
16).  For  the  statement  of  our  verse  has  not  that  importance  in 
itself,  as  something  emphatic  said  of  the  Patriarchs,  and  the  sig- 
nificant inference  from  what  precedes.  The  Apostle  in  this 
verse  puts  two  facts  together ;  (a)  they  seek  a  country  of  their 
own,  (b)  they  confess  they  are  sojourners  in  the  land  where  they 
are.     From  this  he  proceeds  : 

Ver.  15.  And  if  indeed  they  were  thinking  (imperf.)  of  that 
from  which  they  went  out,  they  had  [sl/ow  =  were  having  all  the 
time,  imperf )  opportunity  to  return. 

This  is  mentioned  as  a  possible  inference  from  the  double  fact, 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse,  of  what  they  say  and  seek, 
which  is  the  alternative  of  that  the  Apostle  means  to  introduce. 
It  is  mentioned  to  show  that  it  is  inadmissable.  He  then  presses 
the  other : 

Ver.  16.  But  now  they  desire  a  better  [country]  that  is  a 
heavenly. 

The  expression  returns  to  the  present  tense  of  the  representa- 
tion ver.  14.  It  interprets  by  an  inference  what  that  picture  of 
the  Patriarchs  in  the  scripture  means.  Better,  means  better 
country.  But  to  the  question :  better  than  what  ?  we  suppose 
the  answer  may  be :  better  than  Terah's  country  from  which 
they  came  ;  or  better  than  the  land  in  which  they  sojourned.  It 
was  really  something  better  than  any  existing  land.  For  even 
Canaan,  merely  as  a  land,  was  not  what  they  looked  for ;  but 
Canaan,  as  it  would  be  when  God  would  give  it,  and  all  that  He 
promised  in  the  same  connection.  And  thus  the  Apostle  adds,  by 
way  of  interpretation  :  that  is  a  heavenly. 

For  the  most  part  expositors  interpret  the  Apostle  to  mean 
that  the  Patriarchs  not  only  looked  beyond  their  present  life  for 
the  fulfillment  to  them  of  the  promise,  but  that  they  contem- 
plated heaven  locally  as  a  country,  superterrestrial  and  better 
than  this  earth  ;  much  in  the  material  way  that  is  common  to 
Christian  sentiment  and   language  now.     We  have  remarked, 


xi.  16.]  THE  HEAVENLY  COUNTRY.  423 

at  ver.  10,  that  it  is  quite  consistent  with  the  Apostle's  style  to 
express  Old  Testament  faith  under  a  New  Testament  form.  But 
the  above  interpretation  of  this  text  would  not  make  it  an 
instance  of  expressing  the  faith  of  the  Patriarchs  in  a  New  Tes- 
tament form,  but  in  a  post-New  Testament  form  derived  from 
the  present  epistle,  and  particularly  from  our  verses  10,  16,  com- 
bined with  Rev.  xxi.  xxii.  In  remarking  on  this,  the  distinc- 
tion should  be  noted,  that  we  have  not  before  us  the  question, 
whether  the  Patriarchs  had  a  knowledge  of  a  future  state.  That 
they  certainly  had  as  the  following  clause  of  our  verse  shows ; 
and  it  justified  the  expression:  "in  Abraham's  bosom,^  as  the 
form  of  conceiving  of  it  for  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham.  But 
we  are  considering  whether  the  present  scripture  represents  that 
they  looked  for  heaven  as  a  c-ountry,  or  so  expresses  their  hopes 
in  New  Testament  form.  Now  the  New  Testament  representa- 
tion of  the  future  heaven  of  saints  is:  "to  be  with  Christ,"^ 
until  he  shall  come  again  and  complete  the  glorious  work  of 
redemption  by  the  resurrection  of  the  saints.  Then  heaven  will 
be  a  glorious  kingdom,  which  will  be  delivered  to  the  Father.' 
We  have,  also,  the  representation  of  an  everlasting  inheritance.* 
The  vision  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  also  called  the  Lamb's  wife, 
in  Rev.  xxi.  xxii.,  is  unique.  It  is  the  attendant  of  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth.  It  descends  out  of  heaven  from  God, 
made  ready  like  a  bride  adorned  for  her  husband.  This  in  no 
wise  presents  the  conception  of  a  country.  It  is  a  ravishing 
representation  of  the  glory,  light,  holiness  and  bliss  of  the 
redeemed  estate.  It  is  not  the  same  notion  as  that  of  xii.  22  of 
our  epistle.  That  of  Rev.  xxi.  xxii.  is  expressed  in  materials 
making  the  fabric  of  the  city.  T'hat  of  our  xii.  22  is  composed 
of  the  saints  with  no  mention  of  architectural  features.  The 
uniqueness  of  the  representation  in  Revelation  makes  it  incon- 
ceivable that  our  Author  could  impute  to  the  Patriarchs  that 
form  of  conceiving  heavenly  existence,  or  even  that  he  could  use 
that  form  as  expressing  what  was  the  essence  of  their  heavenly 
hope. 

^  Luke  xvi.  22.  ^  joi,j,  ^iv.  1  sqq.,  2  Cor.  v.  C-9 :  Phil.  i.  23. 

3  1  Cor.  xp.  20-28.  *  1  Pet.  i.  4. 


424  WHAT   THE   PATRIARCHS   LOOKED    FOR.  [xi.  16. 

We  repeat,  then,  that  the  interpretation  that  represents  the 
Apostle  to  say  in  our  verse  that  the  Patriarchs  looked  for  a 
country  to  be  realized  to  them  in  heaven,  where  God  is,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  earth,  is  to  suppose  he  expresses  their  hope  in  a 
post-New  Testament  form,  which  is  chiefly  derived  from  our 
verses  10,  16  themselves,  combined  with  Rev.  xxii. 

The  difficulty  of  this  interpretation  is  felt  by  those  who  give 
it.  Thus  Delitzsch  says :  "  It  must  be  confessed  that  we  no 
where  read  of  the  patriarchs,  that  they  expressed  a  conscious 
desire  for  a  home  in  heaven.  The  nearest  approach  to  anything 
of  the  kind  is  in  Jacob's  vision  of  the  angel-ladder,  and  his  won- 
dering exclamation;  'this  is  the  gate  of  heaven'  (Gen.  xxviii. 
17).  But  even  there  no  desire  is  expressed  for  an  entrance  into 
the  heavenly  land,  but  the  promise  is  renewed  of  future  posses- 
sion of  the  earthly  Canaan."  This  is  true,  and  nothing  could 
be  more  to  the  point.  Holding  to  the  interpretation  in  spite  of 
it,  seems  like  forsaking  exegesis  and  resorting  to  something  else. 
Perhaps  the  word  :  "heavenly  "  (iroy/jci^jo?)  is  thought  to  com- 
pel such  an  interpretation.  But  that  word  does  not  of  itself 
mean  "  in  heaven,"  locally  where  God  is.  Paul  speaks  of:  "  the 
spiritual  [hosts]  of  wickedness  in  the  heavenly  places  "  (iv  nn^ 
inoupavun?)  Eph.  vi.  12 ;  Comp.  Rev.  xii.  7,  8.  In  John  iii. 
12  i-(iuf)fhca  is  opposed  to  i-iyzm,  iu  the  sense  of  what  is  revealed 
and  what  is  not  yet  revealed,  or  what  has  come  from  heaven  to 
earth  and  what  is  yet  to  come  from  heaven,  "  The  word 
inoupdvtixi  notcs  not  Only  that  which  is  in  heaven,  but  that  which 
is  from  heaven,  de  coelo,  as  it  is  said,  ver.  10,  for  he  looked  for 
the  city,  whose  builder  is  God."  '  The  reference  to  Jacob's  vision 
at  Bethel  is  precisely  to  the  point.  There  the  heavenly  country 
was  promised  him,  i.  e.,  a  country  revealed  from  heaven  and  to 
be  secured  to  him  from  the  same  source  and  in  the  terms  of  the 
promise  then  given.  For  that  he  looked,  as  Isaac  and  Abraham 
before  him.  It  was  not  the  mere  land  of  Canaan.  It  was  to  be 
the  land  of  Canaan  made  a  heavenly  country  as  that  spot  where 
he  had  the  vision  was  made  "  the  gate  of  heaven."  "  AYhen  the 
Apostle  calls  the  promised  land  directly  a  heavenly  country,  he 

1  Jos.  Mede  Works,  fol.  1672,  p.  801. 


xi.   16.]  GOD    WAS    NOT   ASHAMED    OF   THEM.  425 

is  justified  in  doing  so  as  surely  as  their  desire  did  not  aim  at 
possessing  it  as  it  now  was  the  property  of  the  Canaanitcs,  but 
was  directed  toward  their  race  being  the  people  of  God  in  this 
laud,  -with  whom  God  would  dwell,  and  from  whom  the  blessing 
of  God  would  extend  to  all  the  generations  of  the  earth ;  thus 
that  God  from  heaven  would  make  this  land  for  their  race  a 
fatherland  in  a  wholly  different  sense  from  Avhich  that  happens 
in  earthly  fashion."^ 

It  is  urged/  that  long  after  the  chosen  people  occupied  the 
promised  land,  true  faith  expressed  itself  by  the  same  confession ; 
e.  g.,  the  Psalmist :  "  I  am  a  stranger  with  thee  and  a  sojourner, 
as  all  my  fathers  were."  ^  The  inference  is  that  the  Patriarchs 
meant  this  just  as  David.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  as  has  just 
been  shown,  that  the  Apostle  does  not  interpret  this  confession  to 
mean  that  those  who  made  it  looked  for  a  country  in  heaven 
above.  Without  such  an  inspired  interpretation  no  one  is 
entitled  to  make  it.  The  Patriarchs  and  JNIoses  and  David  may 
have  confessed  themselves  strangers  and  sojourners  in  the  same 
sense.  But  it  cannot  be  said  of  David  as  of  the  Patriarchs  :  he 
that  says  such  things  manifests  that  he  seeks  a  native  country. 
David  and  Asaph  manifested  that  they  expected  to  be  received 
up  to  glory  and  be  at  the  right  hand  of  God  where  there  are 
pleasures  forever  more.     But  these  are  different  conceptions.* 

Ver.  1 G  b.  "Wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  of  them  to  be  called 
their  God,  for  he  prepared  for  them  a  city. 

Because  of  such  faith  in  the  Patriarchs,  whereby  they  looked 
and  lived  for  the  promises  in  the  way  just  described,  God 
rewarded  them  as  stated  in  this  verso.  Not  ashamed^  expresses 
by  meiosis,  that  God  did  with  divine  pleasure  what  is  affirmed, 
yet  expresses  the  condescension  of  the  act.  The  Apostle  refers 
to  the  particular  occasion  recorded  Ex.  iii.  6,  when  God  said 
to  Moses,  with  great  solemnity :  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham, 
the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob."  The  same  text  is  made 
memorable  by  the  use  the  Lord  Jesus  made  of  it.®  The  Apostle's 

^  von  Ilof.  2  McLean.  '  Ps.  xxxix.  12  ;  cxix.  19  ;  1  Chr.  xxix.  15. 

♦  Ps.  Ixxiii.  24 ;  xvi.  11.  ^  Comp.  ii.  11. 

®  Matt.  xxii.  32 ;  Mark  xii.  2G  ;  Luke  xx.  37. 


426  HE   PREPARED   FOR   THEM   A    CITY.  [xi.  16. 

appeal  to  it  is  hardly  less  remarkable.  For  he,  too,  treats  it  as 
representing  what  God  did  to  the  Patriarchs  themselves.  He  was 
not  ashamed  of  them,  expresses  no  such  inferior  notion  as  that 
God  held  their  names  in  honor  as  departed  worthies,  as  men  call 
themselves  or  their  children  by  great  names  of  the  past.  God 
owned  and  honored  them  as  still  in  being  to  receive  the  consola- 
tion and  joy  of  the  recognition.  As  Jesus  said  :  "  He  is  not  a 
God  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living,"  so  the  Apostle  means :  He 
is  not  rewarding  dead  men,  but  living  men,  when  He  openly 
show^s  He  is  not  ashamed  of  them.  The  expression  of  this 
honor  is  in  calling  himself  their  God.  To  this  the  Apostle  adds  : 
For  he  prepared  for  them  a  city.  The  For  conjoins  this  to  the 
other  as  the  proof  of  God's  rewarding  them ;  the  material  and 
practical  proof  we  may  say,  without  which  his  calling  himself 
their  God  would  be  without  meaning.  The  meaning  we  have 
ascertained  for  vers.  10,  15,  16  a,  involves  our  interpreting  the 
meaning  of  the  present  clause  to  be,  that  God  gave  them  Canaan 
according  to  promise.  And,  agreeably  to  the  foregoing  refer- 
ences to  that  as  their  expectation,  it  is  here  expressed :  he  pre- 
pared for  them  a  city.  For  the  propriety  of  the  expression,  see 
under  ver.  10.  With  this  interpretation  we  find  the  i/Toiiiarrv^, 
aorist,  exactly  the  proper  tense  to  use,  and  the  w^ord  itself: 
he  prepared,  just  what  the  reference  requires.  For  tlie  appeal  is 
to  an  historical  transaction  when  God  so  called  Himself,  and 
when  he  instituted  the  measures  that  initiated  the  occupation  of 
Canaan,  in  fulfillment  of  the  promise  to  the  Patriarchs.  It  ought 
to  deter  expositors  from  interpreting  our  clause  as  expressing 
that  God  prepared  their  city  in  heaven  with  Himself,  when  to  do 
so,  they  must  render  this  aorist  by  the  pluperfect,^  or,  while 
seeming  to  do  justice  to  the  aorist,  they  make  a  meaning  that 
could  only  be  properly  expressed  by  the  perfect.^ 

The  remarkable  thing  about  the  Apostle's  present  statement  is, 
that  what  God  did,  in  giving  possession  of  Canaan,  is  here  repre- 
sented as  done  to  the  Patriarchs  themselves.  We  might  expect 
it  to  be  said  :  he  prepared  a  city  for  their  posterity.  But  it  reads  : 
he  prepared  for  them  a  city.     Thus,  as  in  the  case  of  Abel  above, 

1  Del.  «  Alford.    Versions  of  1611,  1881. 


xi.  17-19.]      BY   FAITH   ABRAHAM   OFFERED   ISAAC.  427 

the  Apostle  represents  that  faith  effected  a  relation  and  commun- 
ion with  God  that  was  not  and  is  not  interrupted  by  death. 

The  Apostle  having  pointed  to  the  three  Patriarchs  and  Sarah 
as  examples  of  faith  in  some  respects  wherein  they  were  all  alike, 
proceeds  to  mention  a  number  of  individuals  that  illustrated  faith 
in  respects  peculiar  to  each.  In  this  category  some  of  those 
already  mentioned  come  in  for  a  second  notice. 

Ver.  17.  By  faith  Abraham  hath  offered  up  Isaac.  Being  tried, 
he  was  offering  even  his  only  begotten,  he  that  accepted  the  prom- 
ises, 18.  to  whom  it  was  said  that  in  Isaac  thy  seed  shall  be  called, 
19.  considering  that  God  (was)  able  to  raise  from  the  dead ;  whence 
also  he  received  him  in  a  parable. 

In  construing  ver.  17,  we  follow  von  Hofmann  in  making 
7rs'.pa!^6/iev(K}  connect  with  the  words  following,  and  taking  what 
precedes  as  a  distinct  sentence.  In  the  first  sentence  the  empha- 
sis is  on  the  predicate  Trpn^evyjvo^tv,  and  not  on  the  subject  Abra- 
ham. This  appears  from  the  position  of  the  verb.  Notice  the 
contrary  in  vers.  5,  7,  8, 11.     In  ver.  8  it  reads  :  TrjVrs:  xaXuu/isvo? 

^AjS.  onrjxouffsv;  here  it   does   not   read  ruarei  7:£tpa!^6nevu^  'J/5.  Tzpoff- 

£i'Tj'^o-(sv.  This  difference  shows  that  mipa!^.  is  not  to  be  taken 
with  the  w^ords  preceding,  but  with  those  following  it.  AVith 
this  construction,  the  perfect  Ttpoffsvijvo-fev  has  no  awkwardness. 
It  is,  like  the  present  tenses  of  ver.  14,  spoken  from  the  record 
of  Scripture.  Contemplating  that,  it  is  natural  to  refer  to  the 
confession  Abraham  w^as  wont  to  make,  by :  he  says ;  and  of 
single  transactions,  to  say  :  he  has  offered  Isaac.  On  the  other 
hand  -zipa^oji.,  as  the  imperf.  participle,  connects  better  with  the 
following  verb  in  the  imperfect.  Thus,  it  begins  another  sen- 
tence that  is  obviously  intended  to  particularize  the  details  of  the 
transaction  referred  to,  so  as  to  make  evident,  and  enhance  the 
faith  then  displayed.  Of  these,  the  being  tried  was  itself  one,  and 
does  not  merely  express  the  occasion  of  his  offering  Isaac. 

(1).  The  transaction  was  a  trial  devised  by  God,  and  intended 
to  put  Abraham  to  the  test,  which  test  he  stood.  (2).  He  did  not 
hesitate  to  give  up  even  {y.ai.  zu-^  //.ovo^sv/])  him  who  was  his  only 
begotten  son,  who  was  such  in  the  sense  in  which  he  is  so  called,  Gen. 
xxii.  2, 16.    (3).  He  that  did  this  was  the  one  that  had  not  merely 


428  THE   PROPHETIC    PARABLE.  [xi.  17-19. 

received  the  promises,^  but  had  with  faith  and  joy  accepted  and 
adopted  them,  and  to  whom  God  had  said :  "  In  Isaac  thy  seed 
shall  be  called/'  by  which  is  noted,  that  all  that  was  promised 
had  been  attached  to  Isaac  as  the  channel  of  fulfillment,  so  that 
it  appeared,  that  by  sacrificing  Isaac  he  made  the  realization  of 
the  promise  impossible,  which  conflict  between  command  and 
promise  he  might  suppose  would  justify  him  in  leaving  the  com- 
mand unfulfilled.  (4).  And  lastly,  the  thought  Is  mentioned 
that  enabled  him  to  bear  the  test  to  which  he  was  put.  He  con- 
sidered God  able  even  to  raise  from  the  dead.  And  in  justifica- 
tion of  this  conviction  the  Apostle  adds  :  from  whence  also  he 
received  him  in  [the  manner  of]  a  parable.'' 

Abraham  held  fast  to  the  assurance  that  what  was  promised 
would  be  fulfilled,  though  the  only  visible  link,  and  indeed  the 
sole  condition  or  means  of  the  realization  of  what  he  hoped  for 
was  destroyed.  Thus  he  rested  on  the  bare  word  of  God.  The 
faith  of  God's  people  has  often  been  tried  in  a  similar  way.  But 
Abraham's  faith  was  put  to  the  test  that  no  other  believer  has 
ever  experienced.  Other  believers  have  seen  every  visible  sign 
and  condition  of  the  fulfillment  of  their  hopes  disappear,  and 
themselves  left  without  these  to  trust  to  the  bare  word  of  God. 
But  God  was  the  agent  in  destroying  these  things,  or  others 
whom  God  suffered — God  who  destroys  the  hope  of  man.  But 
Abraham  was  commanded  to  be  himself  the  destroyer  of  the  very 
pledge  that  God  had  given  as  the  first  link  in  the  fulfillment  of 
his  hopes.  Did  God  ever  require  that  of  another  believer? 
Well  did  he,  that  stood  that  test,  and  so  believed  the  word  of  God, 
earn  the  position  and  title  of  "  the  father  of  all  them  that 
believe."^  God  never  required  the  like  performance  of  another. 
What  Abraham  was  caused  to  do  was  reserved  for  a  higher  use  than 
human  imitation.  God  was  giving  an  example  for  Himself. 
For  on  that  same  spot  in  time  to  come  God  would  give  up  to 
sacrifice  His  only  begotten  Son,  and  not  spare  Him,  or  Himself. 
His  Son  would  really  suffer  death  and  really  rise  from  the 
dead. 

'  Comp.  above  on  ver.  13. 

^The  foregoing  {l)-{i)  from  von  Hof.  '  Kom.  iv.  11. 


xi.  20.j  THE    FAITH    OF    ISAAC.  429 

To  this  the  Apostle  points  wlien  he  adds :  Whence,'  also  he 
received  him  in  a  parable.  By  iv  -apaj3<iX^  is  not  meant :  "  figu- 
ratively speaking ;  "  which  meaning  English  readers  seem  often 
to  take  from  the  rendering  :  "  in  a  figure,"  of  the  version  of  1611. 
As  for  other  interpretations  of  the  present  clause,  one  may  con- 
sult the  extended  account  in  Alford.  The  Author  assumes  in  his 
readers  familiarity  with  the  transaction.  It  ended  by  the  ram 
being  oifered  instead  of  Isaac.  The  death  of  another  that  God 
provided  was  substituted  for  Isaac's  death,  and  accepted  by  God. 
That  constituted  the  parable.^  The  interpretation  was  given  in 
time,  in  the  fullness  of  time,  when  God  sent  forth  His  Son,  born 
of  a  wcniian,  born  under  the  law,  that  He  might  redeem  them 
which  were  under  the  law  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption 
of  sons.^ 

Ver.  20.  By  faith  Isaac  blessed  Jacob  and  Esau,  even  concern- 
ing things  to  come. 

The  brevity  of  this  reference  shows  how  much  the  Author 
counts  on  the  familiarity  of  his  readers  with  the  sacred  facts. 
The  record  itself  is  so  full  and  dramatic  (Gen.  xxvii.)  that  noth- 
ing is  needed  to  enhance  it  as  an  example.  Here  we  are  pointed 
to  what  Isaac  did  concerning  "  things  to  come,"  i.  c,  things  not 
seen,  consistently  with  the  Author's  subject  (ver.  1).  By  :  even 
concerning  things  to  come  (^xai  nsp).  peU.)  a  contrast  is  implied 
between  the  temporal  things  and  actual  property  with  which 
Isaac  would  orcourse  bless  his  sons,  and  the  future  good  that 
he  prophetically  conferred  on  them.  These :  things  to  come 
Isaac  imparted  to  his  sons  with  all  the  manner  of  one  "  dividing 
to  his  sons  the  portion  of  goods  falling  to  each."  How  these 
men  of  faith  lived  in  the  sphere  of  things  hoped  for,  yet  invisible  ! 
As  the  Apostle  mentions  both  Jacob  and  Esau,  it  is  plain  that 
he  cites  the  faith  of  Isaac  merely  as  faith  in  respect  to  what  was 
future  and  unseen,  and  not  as  that  species  of  faith,  that  we  call 

'  It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  meaning  of  odev.  If,  because  in  every  other 
instance  of  its  use  in  this  epistle  it  means :  "  on  which  account,"  we  must  so 
take  it  here,  then  the  receiving  from  the  dead  is  represented  as  the  reward  of 
such  faith  ;  in  either  case,  receiving  from  the  dead  is  meant.  Such  being  the 
fact,  it  is  reasonable  to  take  od^cv  as  referring  to  vEKpuv. 

*  So  Del.,  Ebrard.  von  Ilof.,  Alford.  »  Gal.  iv.  4,  5. 


430  Jacob's  faith  when  dying.  [xi.  21. 

evangelical  faith,  that  has  respect  particularly  to  the  promise  of 
salvation.  The  blessing  of  Esau,  though  it  concerned  things  to 
come,  had  no  concern  with  the  promise  of  salvation  to  men. 
That  was  the  blessing  he  lost.  What  has  just  been  noted  is 
important  to  understanding  the  Author's  aim  in  appealing  to 
these  example  of  faith.  It  shows  how  needless  is  the  perplexity 
that  is  often  felt  when  he  comes  to  cite  Rahab  and  Samson  as 
illustrations  of  faith. 

Jacob  is  cited  next,  in  two  illustrations  that  he  gave  of  faith 
when  about  to  die,  and  which  the  Apostle  mentions  in  an  order 
the  reverse  of  their  occurrence  as  recorded.  See  Gen.  xlviii.  1— 
22;  xlvii.  29-31. 

Ver.  21.  By  faith  Jacob,  when  he  was  a-dying,  blessed  each  of 
the  sons  of  Joseph ;  and  worshipped  on  the  top  of  his  staff. 

The  point  of  the  first  incident  may  easily  be  mistaken.  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  Ephraim  being  preferred  to  Manasseh  in 
analogy  to  the  case  of  Jacob  and  Esau.^  Nor  is  it  that  Jacob,  as 
well  as  Isaac,  blessed  his  sons,  which  notion  has  led  readers  to 
suppose  the  reference  to  be  to  the  record  of  Gen.  xlix.  as  well  as 
to  xlviii.  In  the  catalogue  of  worthies,  beginning  with  ver.  17, 
our  Author  evidently  varies  his  illustration  with  each  instance. 
In  ver.  8-16  he  as  evidently  groups  his  illustrations  as  examples 
of  the  same  kind. 

The  peculiarity  of  the  present  example  appears,  first,  in  select- 
ing the  instance  of  Jacob  blessing  the  sons  of  Joseph,  although 
Jacob  also  blessed  all  his  sons.  It  signalizes  the  faith  of  Jacob,  as 
it  is  the  wonder  of  this  transaction,  that  he,  though  poor,  and  the 
pensioner  of  his  son  Joseph  in  temporal  things,  should  feel  that 
he  was  the  greater,  and  Joseph  the  less  ;  that  he  had  a  blessing 
to  impart  that  was  greater  than  anything  Joseph  could  do  for  his 
sons,  great  as  he  was  in  Egypt,  in  Egypt's  greatest  epoch  ;  that 
it  was  an  honor  done  to  those  sons  to  incorporate  them,  by  adop- 
tion, into  the  tribes  of  Israel,  instead  of  leaving  them  to  find 
their  portion  in  the  land  of  Egypt. 

The  peculiarity  of  the  present  example  appears,  second  and 
expressly,  in  the    saying  :    each  of  the  sons  of  Joseph.    Each  is 

^  Against  Del.,  Liin..  Alford. 


xi.  22.]  JOSEPH    AND    THE    EXODUS.  431 

emphatic.  The  unseen  thing  of  the  future  prophetically  dis- 
pensed to  Joseph's  sons,  was  that,  not  Joseph  alone,  but  each  of 
his  sons  was  to  become  the  patriarchal  ancestor  of  a  tribe  in  Israel, 
just  as  Reuben  and  Simeon,  etc.^ 

The  second  illustration  is  obscure.  In  the  original  account 
this  incident  has  no  connection  with  the  one  just  given.  Nor 
does  the  Apostle  intend  any  combination  of  them  here.  The 
present  is  a  second  and  independent  illustration  from  Jacob. 
The  whole  incident  is  referred  to.  In  view  of  death  Jacob  took 
an  oath  of  Joseph  that  the  latter  would  bury  him  in  Canaan 
with  Abraham.  AVhen  Joseph  had  given  the  pledge,  then 
Jacob  worshipped  upon  the  head  of  his  staff.  The  versions  of 
1611,  1881  quite  needlessly  supply  "leaning."  See  in  Alford 
an  account  of  the  interpretation  of  these  words,  where  especial 
notice  is  taken  of  its  use  as  a  proof  text  for  image  worship.  The 
Hebrew  word  neon  vocalized  one  way  means  "  a  bed  ;"  in  another 
way  means  "  a  staff."  The  LXX.  took  it  in  the  latter  sense, 
and  the  Apostle  quotes  from  them.  It  is  obvious  that  the  wor- 
shipping is  the  important  notion,  and  the  gesture  attending 
it  is  indifferent.  The  spirit  of  that  act  is  revealed  in  the  circum- 
stances It  was  grateful  homage  to  God,  in  the  assurance  that 
his  body  was  to  rest  in  hope  in  the  laud  of  promise,  among  his  own 
people  and  the  people  of  God.  This  signalized  in  Jacob  an  assur- 
ance concerning  many  things  unseen  and  to  be,  of  which  there 
was  no  outward  demonstration.  The  demonstration  was  in  him- 
self, viz.,  his  faith. 

Ver.  22.  By  faith  Joseph,  when  ending  life,  made  mention  of  the 
exodus  of  the  sons  of  Israel,  and  gave  commandment  concerning 
his  bones. 

His  assurance  that  the  Exodus  would  take  place,  though 
several  generations  removed,  is  signalized  by  the  injunction  to 
transport  his  body  to  Canaan  when  the  movement  was  made 
(Gen.  1.  24-26).  That  body  of  Joseph,  embalmed  and  kept 
among  the  living,  Egyptian  fashion,  remained  for  many  genera- 
tions a  mute  testimony  to  the  faith  of  Joseph,  and  a  reminder  of  the 
promise  of  God  to  bring  the  posterity  of  Abraham  back  to  Canaan. 

*  So  von  Hof. 


432  THE    FAITH    OF    MOSES'    PARENTS.  [xi.  23. 

Ver.  23.  By  faith  Moses,  when  he  was  born,  was  hid  three 
months  by  his  parents,  because  they  saw  the  child  was  comely, 
and  they  did  not  fear  the  command  of  the  King^. 

Comp.  Exod.  ii.  1-3.  What  signalized  the  faith  of  Moses' 
parents  was  their  concealing  the  child  and  not  fearing  the  King's 
command  to  destroy  the  male  children ;  which  is  one  fact  de- 
scribed in  its  double  aspect.  Guided  by  ver.  1  and  dcorc  eldov^  we 
may  understand  their  seeing  (comp.  idovreff  ver.  13)  to  be  part  of 
the  faith  to  which  the  Apostle  directs  attention.  The  comeliness 
(affrscov)  of  the  child  was  something  they  were  assured  of,  or  saw  by 
faith.  The  Greek  word,  adopted  from  the  LXX,  means  not  so 
much  physical  beauty,  as  "  refined,"  "  comely,"  betokening  an 
elevated  sphere  of  action.  The  Hebrew  word  2)a  =  "  good,"  sug- 
gests the  thought :  good  for  what  ?  What  they  saw  in  their  child 
was  a  fitness  for  something  great.  Baby  features  could  not  express 
that.  It  is  foolish  to  suppose  the  Apostle  may  refer  here  to  that 
conviction  of  the  superior  beauty  of  their  babe,  that  was  equally  the 
conviction  of  nine-tenths  of  the  Israelitish  parents,  as  it  is  of  such 
a  proportion  of  parents  still.  Hoav  they  saw  what  they  did,  does 
not  plainly  appear.  But  we  may  lean  on  a  tradition  which  we  may 
assume  was  well  known  to  the  Apostle  and  his  readers,  and  may 
suppose  to  be  sanctioned  by  our  verse.  Josephus  ^  shows  that  it 
was  common  in  his  time  to  ascribe  this  to  a  direct  revelation 
given  to  Amram,  the  father  of  Moses.  There  is  nothing  unreas- 
onable in  this  idea,  though  we  must  discredit  much  in  Josephus' 
fulsome  account  of  it.  Such  a  family  revelation  would  help  to 
explain  the  premature,  and  ill-advised  attempt  of  INIoses  to  be  a 
deliverer  of  his  people,^  that  is  recorded  without  explanation  of 
how  he  was  led  to  suppose  he  might  be  accepted  as  such.  A 
reference  to  the  words  of  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  20,  encourages  the 
view  just  given.  The  dffrehr^  of  the  LXX,  Exod.  ii.  2,  is  by  him 
interpreted  as,  dtrrsjo?  rw  'ktS  =  "  fine  to  God."  This  is  no  com- 
mon phrase,  nor  so  common  a  combination  of  words,^  as  to  be 
easily  made  a  superlative.*     It  only  amounts  to  a  superlative 

^  Antiq.  2,  9.  '  Exod.  ii.  11  sqq. ;  Acts  vii.  25. 

»  Comp.  2  Cor.  x.  4 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  14. 

*  Comp.  Winer,  Gram.,  p.  248 ;  against  Meyer  in  loc. 


xi.  24-26.]  THE    FAITH    OF    MOSES'    CHOICE.  433 

because  of  the  quality  so  described,  which  is  unique  rather  than 
superlative,  or  even  iuteuse.  For  no  comparison  is  implied. 
The  expression  seems  to  denote  a  fineness  or  goodness  to  God  that 
was  to  be  a  goodness  for  his  people ;  but  in  what  way,  was 
reserved  for  time  to  show.  Thus  it  was  something  lioped  for  and 
unseen,  and  the  parents  of  Moses  saw  it  only  by  faith. 

Moses  himself  is  cited  next.  He  is  too  great  a  figure  and  too 
full  of  action  to  aiford  only  one  illustration  of  faith.  The  Apostle 
gives  three  (vers.  24—29). 

Ver.  24.  By  faith  Moses,  when  grown  up,  refused  to  be  called 
a  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter,  25.  choosing  rather  to  be  evil  en- 
treated with  the  people  of  God,  than  to  enjoy  the  pleasure  of  sin 
for  a  season,  26.  accounting  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches 
than  the  treasures  of  Egypt ;  for  he  looked  away  to  the  recompense 
of  reward. 

Here  the  Apostle  expresses  the  ruling  motive  of  Moses'  con- 
duct in  a  Christian  form.  It  is  the  Apostle's  interpretation  of 
the  acts  represented  in  the  foregoing  statements,  giving  the  spirit 
of  those  acts.  He  has  even  blended  the  old  and  the  Christian 
form  of  expression  in  :  the  pleasure  of  sin  for  a  season,  by  which 
he  refers  to  the  temptation  Moses  had  to  choose  his  portion  in 
Egypt.  The  advantages  of  that  choice  would  have  been  sinful 
pleasure,  and  they  would  have  been  only  temporary.  It  is  im- 
plied, on  the  contrary,  that  what  he  did  choose  had  pleasure 
enduring  to  eternity.  In  ver.  26  the  Apostle  assumes,  that 
choosing  to  be  identified  with  the  people  of  God  as  Moses  did, 
and  to  suffer  evil  with  them,  was  to  do  in  Old  Testament  fashion 
what  one  does  when  he  bears  the  reproach  of  Christ.^  The  latter 
is  imputed  to  ISIoses  in  so  large  and  free  a  measure  that  he  ac- 
counted such  reproach  more  precious  than  the  treasures  of  Egypt 
to  which  he  might  have  aspired.  The  Apostle  mentions  again 
"  the  reproach"  of  Christ  xiii.  13,  calling  on  his  readers  to  bear 
it  with  Christ.  He  means  the  reproach  and  persecution  ])roceeding 
from  Jews  who  rejected  Christ.  Bearing  that  reproach  required 
believing  Jews  to  go  forth  to  Christ.  To  willingly  endure  that 
reproach  resembles  the  choice  of  Moses,  or  the  choice  of  Moses 

*  So  von  Ilof. 

28 


434  LOOKING   TO  THE   RECOMPENSE.  [xi.  24-26. 

resembles  that.     3Iutatis  mutandis,  the  spirit  and  conduct  were 
the  same.     The  Apostle's  expression  is  simply  metaphor,  where 
he  might  use  simile.     It  is  not  some  typology  that  we  are  to 
detect  in  this  very  natural  mode  of  expression.     It  is  more  to  the 
point  to  detect,  if  possible,  what  influences  the  Apostle  to  choose 
an  expression  that  identifies  the  believing  conduct  of  Moses  with 
what  he  would  have  his  readers  show.     We  may  suppose  it  is 
suggested  primarily,  as  such  things  commonly  are,  in  writing  and 
speaking,  by  the  obvious  and  exceeding  fitness  of  the  thought.    But 
in  the  second  place,  it  is  the  more  to  the  point  and  more  impressive 
that  this  identical  conduct  should  be  witnessed  in  Moses  whom 
the  Judaizing  spirit  at  work  among  the  Apostle's  readers  would 
set  above  Christ,  confiding  in  the  law  of  Moses  instead  of  the 
grace  of  Christ.     But,  thirdly,  it  is  still  more  to  the  point,  that 
the  Apostle  views  the  situation  in  ]\Ioses'  time,  viz.,  "  the  people 
of  God  being  evil  entreated  "  in  Egypt,  as  affording  a  parallel  to 
the  case  of  his  readers  as  represented  x.  30-38.     This  moves  him 
to  interpret  it  by  representing  it  in  Christian  form  of  expression, 
so  as,  in  the  briefest  form,  to  impress  the  example  on  his  readers. 
Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians  were  then  the  adversaries  of  the 
people  of  God  ;  and  God  purposed  then  to  judge,  i.  e.,  vindicate  his 
people  by  "  a  great  recompense  of  reward,"  that  would  show  that 
"  it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God." 
Of  this  recompense  of  reward  Moses  had  warning  as  surely  as 
he  knew  of  the  promise  of  return  to   Canaan,  and  by  the  same 
means,  whatever  they  were.     To  this  he  looked  away  ;  and  this 
determined  him  to  choose  affliction  for  a  season  with  deliverance 
afterward,  rather  than  the  pleasures  of  Egypt  for  a  season  with 
destruction  afterward.     Such  we  understand  to  be  what  is  rep- 
resented in  the  words  before  us.     Though  the  interpretation  de- 
parts from  the  interpretation  generally  accepted,  which  regards  : 
"the  recompense  of  the  reward"  as  a  designation  for  future 
blessings,  viz.,  the  return  to  Canaan,  or  life  in  heaven,  it  is, 
nevertheless,  the  meaning  we  are  compelled  to  take  by  what  we  have 
found  the  word  iJ.ia^'^a-Kodoaia  to  meau,^  and  by  the  whole  spirit 
of  X.  30 — xi.  27.     We  have  found  in  x.  39  a  preface  to  chap.  xi. ; 

1  See  at  x.  35. 


xi.  27.]  SEEING    THE    INVISIBLE    KING.  435 

and  here  INIoses  is  portrayed  as  "  a  righteous  one  by  faith,  who 
does  not  shrink  back  to  destruction,  but  is  of  faith  to  the  saving 
of  his  life." 

Ver.  27.     By  faith  he  left  Egpyt,  not  fearing  the  wrath  of  the 
King ;  for  he  endured  as  seeing  the  invisihle. 

It  has  been  regarded  as  very  difficult  to  determine,  whether 
this  refers  to  the  flight  into  Midiau  (Ex.  ii.  15)  or  to  the  Ex- 
odus,^ and  on  this  point  expositors  have  been  about  equally 
divided.  But  against  understanding  the  reference  to  be  to  the 
flight  into  Midian  is  the  express  statement  of  Exod.  ii.  14,  15, 
that  ascribes  that  flight  to  fear.  It  is  thought,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  were  the  Exodus  meant,  it  would  be  mentioned  after 
ver.  28,  as  the  Exodus  occurred  after  the  Passover ;  and  our 
chapter  observes  a  chronological  order.  It  is  thought  to  be  a 
greater  and  decisive  objection,  that  in  the  Exodus  there  was  no 
braving  the  anger  of  the  king,  but  it  "  was  made  with  his  con- 
sent and  at  his  urgent  instance."  ^  The  reference  is,  however,  to 
the  Exodus.  AVhat  is  represented  here  is  in  accordance  with 
the  recorded  facts  and  the  chronological  order  of  events.  The 
incident  to  which  the  Apostle  refers  occurred  before  the  Pass- 
over, when  Moses  had  his  last  interview  with  Pharaoh,  and  took 
his  final  decision  and  announced  it  to  the  king  (Ex.  x.  28,  29).^ 
Then  the  king  threatened  him  in  anger,  and  Moses  replied 
to  it  in  words  that  intimated  his  purpose  of  leaving  Egypt.  Thus 
the  objection  founded  on  the  use  of  y-a-zih-tv^  viz.,  that  were  the 
Exodus  meant  a  verb  in  the  plural  must  be  used,  as  in  ver.  29, 
is  inapplicable.  For  the  incident  referred  to  concerned  Moses 
personally,  and  was  his  individual  act,  antecedent  to  the  move- 
ment that  comprehended  the  Avhole  people.  Our  verse  expressly 
states  what  was  the  spring  of  INIoses'  conduct  on  that  occasion. 
He  saw  a  greater  than  King  Pliaraoh.  He  saw  the  unseen 
King,  i.  e.,  God.  For  "King"  is  the  notion  to  be  supplied 
after  the  word  invisible.  And  that  seeing  was  faith.  By 
iy.a[}-ipr^(Tt'j  ^  =  he  endured,  is  meant  "he  held  out"  in  his  purpose 
undeterred  by  wdiat  might  come  of  the  King's  wrath. 

1  Seo  in  Alford.  ^  Alford.  ^  sin.iL.rly  von  Ilof. 

*  Alford.  *  Used  once  in  the  New  Testament. 


436  PASSOVER,    RED   SEA,    JERICHO,    RAHAB,       [xi.  28-31. 

Yer.  28.     By  faith  he  has  ohserved  the  Passover,  and  the  sprink- 
ling of  blood,  in  order  that  he  who  was  destroying  the  first  born 
might  not  touch  them. 

The  perfect  -e-otrjxiv  is  to  be  explained  as  the  perfect  in  ver.  17.^ 
By  von  Hofmann  rd  Tzpwrdrir/.a  is  construed  as  the  object  of  ^'icyj^. 
We  would  then  read  :  "  In  order  that  the  destroyer  might  not 
touch  their  first  born."  A  most  excellent  rendering,  which  has 
no  other  objection  than  its  novelty.  Faith,  in  the  sense  of  ver.  1, 
appeared  in  the  assurance  and  demonstration  Moses  had,  on  the 
word  of  God,  that  the  destruction  of  the  first  born  would  take 
place,  and  that  the  sprinkling  of  blood  would  secure  immunity 
to  the  first  born  in  Israel.     Ex.  xii.  1-29. 

Yer.  29.  By  faith  they  passed  through  the  Red  sea  as  by  dry 
land,  of  which  the  Egyptians  making  experiment  were  swallowed 
up.     Ex.  xiv.  15—31. 

Did  the  Apostle  mean  to  say  merely  that  they  crossed  the  sea 
on  dry  ground  he  would  say  so  just  as  it  had  always  been  said,^ 
that  is,  without  w?  =  as.  Saying  :  as  on  dry  ground  has  a  signifi- 
cance like  the  other  instances  of  the  use  of  w^-  (ver.  9,  27).  It  is 
not  similitude  (ver.  12)  that  is  expressed,  but  the  intimation  that 
they  undertook  the  passage  and  pursued  every  step  of  the  way, 
not  along  a  plain  and  visible  road,  but  as  if  the  road  were  there, 
though  not  visible  to  their  senses.^  That  was  their  faith.  Of 
which  refers  to  sea. 

Yer.  30.  By  faith  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  down,  having  been 
compassed  about  for  seven  days.     Josh.  vi. 

The  Author  varies  his  mode  of  expression.  But  it  was  by  the 
faith  of  those  that  compassed  the  walls  that  the  latter  fell. 

Yer.  31.  By  faith  Rahab  the  harlot  perished  not  with  those 
that  were  disobedient,  having  received  the  spies  with  peace.  Josh, 
ii.  1-21  ;  vi.  22-25. 

Her  treatment  of  the  spies  sprang  from  the  conviction  that 
Canaan,  and  so  her  city,  was  destined  by  God  to  be  given  to 
Israel ;  and  she  covenanted  in  advance  for  her  safety.  Eegarding 

'  von  Hof. 

"^  LXX  Ex.  xiv.  16,  22,  29 ;  comp.  Josh.  iii.  17 ;  1  King  ii.  8. 

*  von  Hof. 


xi.  32.]  GIDEO^^,  BARAK    AND    OTHERS.  437 

the  fitness  of  this  example  of  faith  in  such  a  catalogue,  see  above 
on  ver.  20. 

Ver.  32.  And  what  say  I  more?  For  time  will  fail  me  to  nar- 
rate of  Gideon,  Barak,  Samson,  Jephthah,  David  and  Samuel  and 
the  prophets. 

The  Apostle  feels  that  he  has  particularized  enough,  and  in  a 
summary  way  indicates  how  abundant  are  the  examples  of  faith 
at  his  command.  He  names  six  persons  and  then  a  whole  class. 
These  references  cover  the  period  included  in  the  Old  Testament 
canonical  scriptures.  In  corroboration,  we  notice  that  the  ten 
predicates  that  follow  to  ver.  35  a  mention  matters  recorded  in 
those  scriptures,  whereas  what  follows,  in  35  b,  sqq.,  may  almost 
all  be  found  in  the  Apocrypha,  and  most  of  them  no  where  else. 
The  ten  predicates  33-35  a  refer  to  the  subjects  named  in  our  ver. 

32.  The  predicates  35  6  refer  to  others  {aXhn),  and  those  of  36 
sqq.  to  "  still  others  "  (irepoi). 

We  notice  that  the  names  of  our  ver.  32  do  not  occur  in  chro- 
nological order  ;  yet  if  taken  by  couples  they  do  so,  only  the 
second  mentioned  in  each  case  is  the  first  chronologically.  This 
gives  color  to  the  conjecture  of  Liinemann,  that  the  names  are 
intended  to  be  read  with  an  emphasis  that  would  amount  to  saying : 
"  Gideon  as  well  as  Barak  ;  Samuel  as  well  as  Jephthah  ;  David 
as  well  as  Samuel."  But  we  must  expect  things  of  this  sort  to 
escape  our  penetration.  See  another  conjecture  iu  Alford.  The 
predicates  (vers.  33—35  a)  are  more  numerous  than  the  names  in 
ver.  32,  to  which  they  refer.  It  is  observed  that  the  first  nine 
make  three  triplets,  as  the  names  of  our  ver.  32,  make  three 
couples.  The  first  triplet  mentions  achievements ;  the  second 
deliverances ;  the  third  what  they  withstood,^  to  which  ver.  35  a 
is  added.  Beyond  this  it  is  difficult  to  detect  any  correlation  of 
names  and  predicates.     The  plural  relative  subject  o?=who,  ver. 

33,  and  the  following  verbs  in  the  plural  permit  us  to  suppose 
that  each  predicate  may  apply  to  two  or  more  of  the  persons 
named,  while  the  predicates  being  more  numerous  than  the  sub- 
jects named  intimates  that  two  or  more  things  are  predicated  of 
the  same  subject.     The  word  prophets  comprehends  a  large  and 

^  So  von  Hof. 


438  WHO  SUBDUED   KINGDOMS.  [xi.  33. 

indefinite  list  of  unnamed  worthies.  The  mention  of :  "  quench 
the  power  of  fire,"  (ver.  34),  wliich  can  refer  to  nothing  known 
except  the  friends  of  Daniel,  shows  that  the  predicates  of  vers. 
33-35  a  are  not  confined  to  expressing  what  is  true  of  the  per- 
sons named  in  our  ver.  32.  The  Author  roams  in  thought  over 
all  the  period  comprehended  in  the  canonical  scriptures.  His 
mention  of  names  in  our  verse  is  only  in  a  representative  way. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  find  incidents  in  the  Old  Testament 
answering  to  the  predicates  of  ver.  33-35  a.  But  it  is  far  from 
easy  to  be  sure  that  we  have  identified  the  references  that  were 
in  the  Apostle's  mind  when  he  wrote.  The  differences  among 
expositors  in  making  these  identifications  is  proof  enough  of  this, 
seeing  that  hardly  any  two  will  point  to  just  the  same  things 
throughout.  It  is  more  important  to  discern  in  each  case  the 
particular  matter  or  substance  of  faith  that  the  Apostle  has  in 
mind  ;  for  he  says  :  through  faith  (ver.  33),  wliich  applies  to  all 
the  predicates  that  follow.  This  could  only  be  satisfactorily 
ascertained  by  identifying  the  incidents  referred  to  with  their 
attending  circumstances. 

Yer.  33.  Who  through  faith  subdued  kingdoms.  Instead  of 
■Ki(7Tsi  as  heretofore,  we  here  have  8td  Tzcffzeuj?,  which  is  perhaps 
chosen  because  it  "  suits  better  the  miscellaneous  verbs  of 
predication  which  follow,  e.  g.,  laiizaav  bwaiivj  -upo^.'"^  The  mean- 
ing, however,  is  not  different.  The  reference  here  is  to  Gideon 
and  David.  The  former  (Jud.  vi.  11-vii.)  annihilated  the 
power  of  Midian,  and  made  the  name  Midian  almost  disappear 
from  history.  Every  step  to  that  achievement,  but  especially 
attacking  the  host  of  Midian  with  three  hundred  men,  was  done 
through  faith  that  Avas  assurance  of  things  hoped  for,  yet  without 
visible  evidence  of  their  possibility.  As  for  David,  all  his  con- 
quests may  be  referred  to  (2  Sam.  v.  17-25  ;  viii.  1-14  ;  1  Chron. 
xiv.).  Eegarding  his  faith,  2  Sam.  v.  17  sqq.,  1  Cliron.  xiv. 
show  that  it  was  substantially  the  same  as  Gideon's,  differing 
only  in  the  manner  in  \vhich  David  was  certified  of  divine  help 
and  success.  Beside  these,  the  Apostle  may  have  in  mind  also 
Barak  (Jud.  iv.)  and  Jephthah  (Jud.  xi.  8  sqq.). 

J  Alford. 


xi.  33.]  OBTAINED   PROMISES.  439 

Wrought  righteousness.  The  expression  signifies  a  good  and 
blameless  life/  and  does  not  especially  refer  to  the  discharge  of 
judicial  functions.  Yet  in  eminent  men,  who  are  public  func- 
tionaries, the  latter  meaning  will  necessarily  be  more  prominent. 
It  must  be  Samuel,  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  Judges,  that  is 
primarily  meant  here.  In  this  light  he  is  expressly  presented 
1  Sam.  xii.  His  whole  life  was  regulated  by  the  assurance  of 
being  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  his  public  acts,  as  judge,  and 
when  he  anointed  Saul  and  David  to  rule,  and  when  he  rejected 
Saul,  where  displays  of  that  faith  that  is  the  assurance  of  things 
invisible.  But  David,  too,  may  be  intended ;  comp.  2  Sam.  ix. 
14,  15,  and  indeed  all  those  named  ver.  32,  and  others  beside. 

Obtained  promises.  The  word  for  obtained,  i-niTw/jv^,  is  the 
same  that  is  used  vi.  15  [where  see  comment]  to  say  that  Abra- 
ham "  obtained  the  promise."  That  was  receiving  a  promise  in 
a  way  that  made  it  his  own,  so  that  it  is  called :  "  the  promise 
of  Abraham."  The  present  reference  is  to  two  or  more  that 
obtained  promises  in  that  way.  The  most  illustrious  instance  of 
the  kind  in  the  Old  Testament,  after  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob, 
is  that  recorded  2  Sam.  vii.,  where  David  obtained  the  promise 
that  the  Messiah  should  descend  from  him,  according  to  which  : 
"the  mercies  of  David  "  ^  became  a  name  for  the  covenant  promises 
of  salvation  to  be  used  like  the  name :  "  the  promise  of  Abraham." 
We  may  be  sure^  that  the  Apostle  refers  to  that  primarily,  for  the 
record  not  only  makes  the  promise  very  prominent,  but  also  the 
traits  that  manifested  David's  faith,  and  that  it  was  to  his  faith 
that  the  promise  was  given  as  a  reward. 

As  the  next  instance,  viz.,  stopping  the  mouth  of  lions,  refers 
to  Daniel,  we  may  suppose  that  the  present  statement  also  relates 
to  that  period,  and  that  the  Apostle  has  in  mind  Jeremiah  (xxv. 
12  ;  xxix.  10)  who  obtained  the  promise  of  the  destruction  of 
Babylon  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  Jerusalem ;  and  Dan- 
iel to  whom  the  same  was  renewed  on  the  eve  of  its  fulfillment 
(Dan.  ix.  24—27),  together  with  much  relating  to  a  remoter 
future  of  the  manifestation  of  the   Messiah.     These  promises 

^  Comp.  Acts  X.  35 ;  James  i.  20;  LXX.,  Ps.  xv.  2. 

2  Isa.  Iv.  3 ;  Acts  xiii.  34.  a  Against  Alford. 


440  STOPPED   THE   MOUTHS   OF    LIONS.  [xi.  34. 

were,  in  the  history  of  grace,  inseparably  connected  with  the 
names  of  Jeremiah  and  Daniel  (JNIatt.  xxiv.  15),  who  received 
them,  so  that  they  obtained  them  in  the  same  manner  that 
Abraham  and  David  obtained  the  promises  that  were  peculiarly 
their  own. 

The  three  predicates  now  considered  finish  those  that  we  have 
classified  as  examples  of  ackievements  through  faith.  Now  follow 
those  denoting  delwerances. 

Ver.  34.  Stopped  the  mouths  of  lions.  Here  the  reference  can 
only  be  to  Daniel  (vi.  22),  where  the  very  phrase  is  used.  Kill- 
ing lions,  as  Samson  and  David  did,  would  not  be  referred  to  as 
shutting  their  mouths.^  The  record  concerning  Daniel  makes  it 
evident  that  he  entered  tlie  lions'  den  in  the  full  assurance  that.no 
harm  would  come  to  him ;  which  was  his  faith.  The  following  case 
is  precisely  of  the  same  sort.  Quenched  the  power  of  fire,  can 
only  refer  to  Daniel's  three  friends  (Dan.  iii.).  Escaped  the 
edges  of  the  sword.  This  was  true  of  Elijah  (1  Kings  xix.  10, 
14  ;  xviii.  15),  and  of  Elisha  (2  Kings  vi.  13-18,  31-38). 

Then  follow  three  predicates  expressive  of  endurance  and  with- 
standing triumphantly  in  conflict.  Were  made  strong  from  weakness. 
Such  was  the  remarkable  case  of  Samson  (Judges  xvi.  28-30). 
In  the  record,  precisely  the  characteristics  of  faith  that  this  chap- 
ter is  meant  to  illustrate  appear  in  the  clearest  light.  This  (comp. 
on  ver.  20)  should  relieve  the  perplexity  of  such  as  stumble  at 
Samson's  being  brought  forward  as  an  example  of  faith.  It  is 
not  his  whole  life  that  is  appealed  to.  Nor  is  such  the  appeal  in 
the  case  of  any  one  of  the  persons  named.  The  reference  here  is 
to  one  supreme  moment,  and  that  the  last  of  Samson's  life,  when 
he  did  show  great  faith. 

"Were  made  strong  in  war.  David  may  again  be  thought  of 
here  (comp.  Ps.  xviii.  34;  cxliv.  1).  He,  like  Moses,  with 
religious  experiences  many  and  varied  enough  to  make  several 
lives,  is  great  enough  to  furnish  several  illustrations.  But  the 
case  of  Asa  (2  Chron.  xiv.),  and  that  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron. 
XX.)  also  fit  this  description.  And  likewise  Barak  (Judges  iv.  6). 
The  present  trait  is  not  sharply  distinct  from  that  which  follows, 

^  Against  Lindsay,  etc. 


xi.  35.]  WOMEN    RECEIVED    THEIR    DEAD.  441 

SO  that  the  examples  of  the  one  will  be  the  examples  of  the 
other. 

Put  to  flight  the  armies  of  aliens.  Whatever  beside  might  be 
thouglit  of  here,  we  would  suppose  it  must  embrace  a  reference 
to  Hezekiah  (Isa.  xxxvii.  14—20,  33-37 ;  2  Kings  xix.),  whose 
faith  and  prayer  alone,  without  array  of  arms,  warded  off  the 
impending  blow  of  the  Assyrian  army,  and  postponed  the  cap- 
tivity of  the  Jews  fur  another  century. 

Ver.  35.  Women  received  their  dead  by  a  resurrection.  This  is 
a  predicate  by  itself.  It  relates  to  women  exclusively.  The  most 
obvious  reference  is  to  the  widow  of  Zarephath,  to  whom  Elijah 
restored  her  son  (1  Kings  xvii.  17),  and  the  Shunamite  M'oman 
to  whom  Elisha  restored  her  son  (2  Kings  iv.  18).  It  is  not 
necessary^  to  understand  that  the  faith  of  the  women  is  meant 
here,  as  the  construction  of  ver.  30  shows.  Neither  is  it  neces- 
sary to  understand  that  only  the  faith  of  the  Prophets  is  meant. 
Yet  we  suppose  the  Apostle  refers  primarily  to  the  latter,  because 
of  the  special  mention  of  "  the  prophets,"  ver.  32. 

Here  ends  the  list  of  predicates  that  refer  to  the  subjects 
named  in  a  representative  way  ver.  32.  The  Apostle  proceeds 
with  another  list,  the  transition  being  marked  by  «UAo£  =  others. 
This  list  differs  from  the  foregoing  in  that  all  the  predicates 
express  sufferings  endured  for  the  sake  of  faith.  For  some  of 
these  we  may  find  corresponding  facts  in  the  Old  Testament. 
But  as  those  that  are  most  unmistakably  identified  are  found 
recorded  in  Maccabees,  it  is  possible  that  all  whom  the  Author 
has  in  mind  belong  to  records  later  than  the  accounts  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  he  has  in  mind 
any  characters  that  are  not  on  record  for  us.  Not  attempting  to 
determine  whether  the  following  instances  must  all  be  referred  to 
a  period  subsequent  to  the  Old  Testament  records,  we  may  re- 
produce the  citations  we  find  in  various  commentaries  as  suitable 
instances  to  the  point.  Others  were  put  to  the  rack.  Strong  in 
the  faith  of  a  better  resurrection  to  eternal  life,  they  let  themselves 
be  racked  instead  of  accepting  the  proifercKl  deliverance,  which 
would  have  been  deliverance  from  temporal  pain  at  the  cost  of 
that  resurrection  (2  Mace.  vi.  28  sqq.). 

*  Against  Alford. 


442  THEY   WERE   STONED.  [xi.  36,  37. 

Ver,  36.  Then  follows  the  reference  to  others  still  {irepot 
di)  that  faith  made  strong  to  endure  al^use  of  mockings  (1  Mace, 
ix.  26 ;  2  Mace.  vii.  7)  and  scourgings,  and  what  was  still  more 
{en  di),  because  an  enduring  anguish,  bonds  and  imprisonment 
(Jer.  XX.  2;  xxxvii.  15  ;  xxxviii.  6).  How  many  kinds  of  cruel 
death  have  such  believers  died  ! 

Ver.  37.  They  were  stoned,  like  Zechariah  (2  Chron.  xxiv. 
20) ;  they  were  sawn  asunder,  which  is  said  to  have  happened 
to  Isaiah  ;  ^  they  were  tempted.  Here  we  encounter  the  notion,^ 
a  very  old  and  common  one,  that  Ir^etpdcf^-qcrav  must  be  a 
copyist's  error.^  The  reason  for  this  is,  first,  rhetorical ;  it  is 
deemed  inconceivable  that  "so  mild  a  word"  should  come  in  the 
midst  of  a  list  so  descriptive  of  the  worst  torments  ;  and,  second, 
expositors  find  no  obvious  example  of  temptation  endured  through 
faith  that  is  remarkable  enough  to  be  classed  in  such  a  list  as  the 
present.  The  case,  in  respect  to  criticism  of  the  text,  is  precisely 
like  that  of  ffuvxtxepaaiiivouq,  iv.  2.  MSS.  and  other  authority  for 
settling  the  text,  are  all  that  are  needed  to  establish  a  disputed 
word.  Nothing  but  the  reasons  assigned  above  can  be  urged 
against  it.  Of  these  the  first  is  the  chief.  If  one  would  wit- 
ness what  conjecture  can  achieve  when  it  tries  its  best  at  amend- 
ing the  text,  without  any  other  aid  than  its  own  resources,  he 
will  perhaps  find  it  in  the  critical  treatment  of  this  word.  We 
are  content  to  take  the  word  as  it  is,  and  glad  that  there  is  no 
reason  for  doubting  its  being  genuine,  except  the  fact  that  it  appears 
in  such  a  combination.  Its  condemnation  on  that  account  may, 
perhaps,  be  no  wiser  than  the  condemnation  of  Jesus  because  he 
was  found  in  the  company  of  sinners.  That  condemnation 
rested  on  a  false  assumption,  and  so  may  the  condemnation  of  this 
word.  Though  temptation  to  evil,  and  especially  to  forsaking 
God,  seems  mild,  compared  with  torments,  which  must  be 
thought  of  as  themselves  one  form  of  temptation  to  forsake  God, 
it  might  be  regarded  very  differently  by  a  sanctified  soul  like 
the  Apostle.*     Liinemann,  with  the  remark  :  "if:  were  tempted 

1  Comp.  sources  given  in  Alford.  *  Del.,  Alford,  von  Hof. 

*  Opposed  by  Stuart,  Lindsay,  Farrar. 

*  Comp.  Farrar,  "  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul,"  chap.  ix. 


xi.  36,  37,]    "Er.eipdanriaav  ;    THEY   WERE   TEMPTED.  443 

be  genuine,"  cites  2  Mace.  vii.  24  as  an  example.  But  a  better 
example  is  Daniel,  who  must  have  been  mightily  besieged  by 
temptation  to  forget  God  and  do  homage  to  the  idols  of  Babylon  ; 
temptations  in  the  form  of  seductions,  that  appealed  to  his  imagi- 
nation, that  wrought  on  him  with  all  the  imposing  greatness  of 
the  visible  world.  These  temptations  assailed  him  before  he  felt 
those  others,  like  the  terrors  of  the  lions'  den.  Christian  experience 
teaches  that  such  temptations  are  the  most  dreadful.  For  what 
is  most  powerful  in  turning  away  from  God  is  most  to  be  dreaded. 
When  Daniel  had  conquered  these  temptations  by  faith,  the  den 
of  savage  lions  was  a  tame  affair  in  comparison.  Tempted  by 
the  promise  of  pardon,  Cranmer  signed  a  recantation  of  what  he 
had  been  professing  and  preaching.  Truly  penitent  for  this, 
he  declared  that  nothing  could  afford  him  consolation  but  the 
prospect  of  extenuating  his  guilt  by  encountering  the  fiery  tor- 
ments that  awaited  him.  He  accordingly  met  his  death  at  the 
stake  with  the  utmost  fortitude,  giving  his  right  hand  to  the 
flames  to  be  consumed  first,  exclaiming  :  "  This  unworthy  hand, 
this  unworthy  hand  ! "  Such  was  the  sentiment  of  a  fine  spirited, 
intelligent  Englishman  and  Christian,  and  a  leader  in  that  Ref- 
ormation that  Avas  the  regeneration  of  Christendom.  In  his 
story,  the  ordeal  of  temptation  and  the  ordeal  of  burning  at  the 
stake  present  no  incongruity  in  combination.  For  hiili  the  ordeal 
of  temptation  was  the  more  terrible,  and  in  an  ascending  climax, 
should  be  named  after  bonds  and  burning,  like  the  climax  of  the 
Apostle :  they  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn  asunder,  they  were 
tempted.  Thus  we  would  accept  the  word  iTzetpdffS.  as  the  genu- 
ine text.  And  as  the  word  in  its  combination  is  half  of  its  sig- 
nificance, we  would  accept  all  that  he  thus  implies,  and  learn 
what  is  to  be  thought  of  temptation  by  a  properly  instructed 
Christian  mind.  This  seems  to  us  a  better  sort  of  criticism  than 
that  which  goes  about  amending  by  conjectures  a  text  so  well 
supported.  There  is  even  at  hand  a  better  vindication  of  the 
word  as  it  stands  than  tiiat  which  has  been  given  above.  Our 
whole  epistle  is  that  vindication.  It  is  written  to  believers  sorely 
tempted  to  forsake  the  faith  of  Christ  for  confidence  in  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  law.     The  magnitude  of  the  peril  finds  a  measure 


444  OF   WHOM   THE   WORLD   WAS   UNWORTHY.         [xi.  38. 

in  the  things  that  make  this  epistle  so  pre-eminent  for  profound 
argument  and  solemn  warning.  The  preface  of  our  chapter  is  : 
"  we  are  of  faith  to  the  gaining  of  the  soul  and  not  of  shrinking 
back  to  destruction."  Under  that  caption,  the  faith  that  tri- 
umphs over  the  temptation  to  shrink  back  to  destruction  must 
be  one  of  the  greatest  particulars,  while  temptation  of  that  sort 
must  be  one  of  the  most  terrible  evils  of  which  the  chapter  is 
likely  to  treat.  Thus  we  must  regard  the  captiousness  that  has 
been  shown  about  this  irTsipda^ffav  as  one  of  the  many  indica- 
tions of  how  little  expositors  have  comprehended  the  spirit  of 
the  writing  they  were  studying.  Before  leaving  this  instance  of 
what  faith  encountered,  we  may  add  the  three  friends  of  Daniel 
to  the  list  of  those  that  may  have  been  in  the  Apostle's  mind 
when  he  said  :  they  were  tempted.  Their  case  was  like  Daniel's. 
Of  another  kind  was  the  temptation  Nehemiah  encountered  in 
the  wiles  of  Sanballat,  the  Horonite. 

They  were  slain  with  the  sword,  like  Urijah  who  was  killed  by 
Jehoiakin  (Jer.  xxvi.  23)  and  the  prophets  whom  Jezebel  killed 
(1  Kings  xix.  10),  Worse  than  death,  even  than  agonizing 
death,  is  a  life  of  continual  denial  and  misery.  Hence  the 
Apostle  concludes  by  mentioning  such  as  led  a  life  of  that  kind, 
as  Elijah  and  Elislia,  and  we  may  add  John  Baptist.  For 
Irefjoi  di  is  not  now  the  subject,  but  the  subject  of  r^sfnT/X^'hr^  comes 
in  after,  and  lies  in  the  relative  clause  :  "  of  whom  the  world  was 
not  worthy."  They  went  about  in  sheep  skins,  in  goat  skins,  being 
destitute,  afflicted,  evil  entreated, 

Ver.  38.  Of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,  wandering  in 
deserts  and  mountains  and  caves  and  holes  of  the  earth  (1  Kings 
xviii.  4,  13:  1  Mace.  ii.  28,  29;  2  Mace.  v.  27;  vi.  11  ;  x.  6). 
"When  the  Apostle  says  of  these  :  of  whom  the  world  was  unwor- 
thy, as  Calvin  comments,  he  reverses  the  common  judgment 
of  mankind.  Such  vagabonds  seemed  unfit  to  be  on  the  earth. 
The  truth  was,  the  earth  was  unworthy  of  them. 

Ver.  39.  And  these  all,  having  witness  borne  to  them  through 
their  faith,  received  not  the  promise  of  40.  God,  who  provided 
something  better  for  us,  that  they  should  not  without  us  be  made 
perfect.  ,  > 

^  Lun.,  von  Hof. 


xi.  30,  40.]     god's  pi:omipe  not  ykt  received.  44o 

These  all  {iJjzot  r.'hrt^,  not  "  all  these")  refers  to  the  whole  list 
of  aneients  mentioned  from  ver.  4.  In  /.a'i  ooro:  T:fhTt<;,  the  And 
so  conjoins  the  present  statement  with  what  prece<]es  as  to  sig- 
nify that  something  different  from  the  foregoing  line  of  tliought 
is  to  Ixj  expressofJ.  And,  awordingly,  we  have  it  said  of  "  these 
all "  that  they  were  borne  witness  to  through  their  faith.  In  ver. 
2  it  was  said:  " the  ancients  were  borne  witness  to  in  faith" 
(iv  ranrr^,  i.  e.,  faith),  meaning  that  hy  s^;ripture  or  other  tf-stimony 
they  have  this  good  report.  Here  it  is  expressed  that  by  their 
faith  ('^'7.  r/;?  r:Vr£Wi)  they  have  this  testimony  just  as  other  things 
have  ix-'en  said  of  them  as  coming  about  by  faith  (-£?t££,  fiia  -.)  e.  g., 
"  by  faith  Abel  offered,"  etc.,  "  through  faith  suMued  king- 
doms," etc.  This  change  of  expression  and  thought  lends  an 
emphasis  that  may  be  interpreted  by  translating :  *'  And  these  all 
though  they  were  Vxjrne  witness  to  through  th(;ir  faith,"  i.  e.,  men 
of  faith  though  these  were,  all  of  them.'  The  transition  to  the 
different  line  of  thought  appears  plainly  in  what  is  affirmed  of 
"  these  all."  They  received  not  the  promise  of  God ;  for  so  we 
tran.slate,  connecting  nrj  ^')t<,~j  with  rr/./  lr.a-fYt).ia.>.  For  this  we 
have  the  example  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Chr>^sostom.^ 
The  justifif^ation  of  this  is  found  chiefly  in  what  we  have  shown 
at  X.  30  concerning  the  use  of  i-ayyt/ia  in  this  epistle.  The 
Author  does  not  use  it  in  a  way  to  invest  it  with  a  meaning  of 
its  own,  .so  that  when  he  .says  :  "  the  promise,"  it  must  mean 
■/.riT  i'^iiyy',-^^  the  promi.se  of  salvation  by  the  Messiah.  Wherever 
it  Ls  ased,  we  must  kxjk  to  the  context  to  explain  what  promi.se 
Ls  meant.  At  ix.  15  this  explanation  is  given:  "the  promi.se 
of  the  everlasting  inheritance."  And  here,  ary^rjrdinglv,  it  is 
expres.sed  what  promise  is  meant  by  calling  it :  the  promise  of 
God.  This  would  h^d  us  to  suppo.se  that  the  rfffrfmf.e  in  lo  the 
promise  of  enterinfj  GofFs  rcM,  mentioned  iv.  l,and  made  .so  much 
of  by  the  Apostle,  especially  in  this  respect,  viz.,  that  the  promi.se 
of  entering  Orel's  rest  is  still  existent  and  valid,  and  that  mc  are 
not  too  late  for  it.  And  that  such  is  the  reference  is  made  cer- 
tain by  the  fact  that  the  Author  in  the  verses  before  us  rw.urs  to 
the  .same  notion  of  the  promise  in  question  not  lx;ing  a  matter 

^  Comp.  Del.,  Alford.  '.See  in  DeL 


446  HOW   SOMETHING    BETTER    WAS  [xi.  39,  40. 

of  finished  history,  and  of  our  not  being  too  late  for  it.  We 
find  additional  intimation  of  what  promise  is  meant  in  the  clause : 
that  they  might  not  be  perfected.  Had  they  received  the  promise, 
they  would  first  have  been  perfected,  as  they  must  be  who  receive 
{x(>ij.i%uj)  ^  the  promise  of  rest,  i.  e.,  enter  on  its  enjoyment  (comp. 
X.  1,  14  ;  xii.  23).  The  promise  intended,  then,  is  the  promise 
of  entering  God's  rest;  and  the  Author  identifies  it  by  calling  it: 
"the  promise  of  God."  Identifying  the  promise  thus,  prepares 
us  for  the  sentiment  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  express.  To  receive 
that  promise  of  entering  God's  rest,  i.  e.,  to  enter  the  rest  would 
be  the  consummation  of  human  history  in  earthly  relations.  Had 
those  ancients  received  that  promise,  then  those  that  have  come 
after  would  never  have  appeared  in  history  at  all ;  or  had  that 
promise  been  given  and  the  rest  entered  on,  then  all  after  would 
have  been  too  late  for  the  promise.  But  the  Apostle  has  elabor- 
ately shown  in  iv.  1-11  that  such  is  not  the  case,  and  in  view  of 
this,  and  that  the  promise  is  left  of  entering  God's  rest,  he  says 
here  that  God  provided  better  for  us  than  that  the  ancients 
should  receive  that  promise. 

Who  provided  something  better  concerning  us.  It  is  usual  to 
construe  rod  I'ieoo  .  .  .  7:poi3X£(}>a!J.i'M)u  as  a  gen.  absolute.  The 
construction  adopted  above  makes  T.i>o[-iXzil'.  in  apposition  with 
T.  i^sfw.  Though  -po^Xtil'.  is  a-a?  Xey.  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
rarely  found  anywhere  in  Greek  authors,^  no  one  has  succeeded 
in  detecting  any  singular  significance  in  its  use  here,  or  why  a 
more  common  synonym  of  the  rendering  given  might  not  have 
been  used.^  Perhaps  the  sanctified  wit  of  Bengel  divines  the 
motive  for  its  present  selection :  Exquidtum  verbum.  Quae 
nondum  yidet  fides,  Dens  providet,  Gen.  xxii.  8,  14;  John  vi.  6. 
Ex  hac  provisione  fiuxit  tota  eeonomia  temjDorum  et  testimonium 
Dei  ad  veteres. 

The  words  before  us,  with  the  following  clause,  have  proved 
very  perplexing  to  expositors.  The  more  common  view  under- 
stands the  y.psir6'>  rt  to  express  comparison  between  the  ancients 
and  us  (r^z/wv),  and  the  meaning  to  be  :  God  has  made  our  situa- 

^  Comp.  at  vi.  12. 

2  See  Grimm's  Lex.,  sub  voc. ;  LXX.  Ps.  xxxvii.  13.  ^  Comp.  Alford. 


xi.  39,  40.J  PROVIDED   CONCERNING   US.  447 

tion  better  than  tlieirs.  This  is  tlie  coloring  given  by  the  ren- 
derino- .-  "  God  having  provided  some  better  thing  for  us,"  ^ 
which  is  not  changed  by  the  translation :  "  some  better  thing  con- 
cerning us."  ^  This  leads  to  the  question :  what  is  the  better 
thing  provided  for  us  that  tlie  ancients  had  not  ?  To  this  it  is 
more  commonly  answered  •  the  promised  Messiah  and  His 
finished  work.^  But  tJiis  is  inadmissable,  because  from  the  rela- 
tion of  our  participial  clause  to  the  foregoing :  "  they  received 
not  the  promise,"  it  would  mean  that  we  have  received  what  they 
did  not  receive ;  whereas  in  fact  according  to  iv.  11,  we  have  no 
more  received  the  promise  than  they.  It  does  not  obviate  this 
fact  to  say,*  that  the  mighty  difference  is,  that  for  the  ancients 
the  promise  was  simply  future,  while  for  us  it  is  at  once  present 
and  future.  For,  beside  what  has  been  objected,  we  see  that  it  is 
the  Apostle's  meaning  to  express  likeness  between  the  ancients 
and  us,  as  the  following  clause  shows  :  that  they  without  us 
should  not  be  perfected. 

Delitzsch,^  though  rejecting  it,  shows  that  "the  prevalent 
interpretation  among  the  fathers  "  did  not  represent  the  Apostle 
as  saying,  that  the  case  of  Christian  believers  was  better  than  that 
of  the  ancients,  but  that  God  has  provided  something  better  with 
respect  to  them  than  would  have  been  had  the  ancients  received 
the  promise,  instead  of  not  receiving,  as  was  the  fact.  And  such, 
we  believe,  is  the  proper  construction  of  the  language  before  us. 
At  vi.  9  we  have  seen  that  ra  y.pstrro'^a  does  not  express  a  com- 
parison with  the  bad  things  or  bad  persons  previously  described, 
as  if  the  Author  said :  "  We  are  persuaded  of  you  better  things 
than  of  those,"  or  that  you  are  better  than  those  persons.  In  con- 
trast with  the  previously  mentioned  persons  and  their  things,  he 
says  of  his  readers  :  "  we  are  persuaded  the  better  things,"  mean- 
ing things  in  themselves  good,  and  better  than  other  good  things, 
in  a  sense  previously  established.  So  in  the  words  before  us : 
xpeTzTov  t:  expresses  no  comparison  with  the  persons  previously 
mentioned,  i.  e.,  "the  ancients."  But  here,  unlike  vi.  9  (rd 
xpeirrovTa)  the  xpeiTTo'^  has  no  definite  article,  and  is  thus  no  defi- 

1  Version  1611.  '  Version  1881.  ^  Coj^p  0^^,^^ 

*  As  Del.  -         6  See  also  Alford. 


448  xpstTTov  Tt.  [xi.  39,  40. 

nite  notion  in  itself,  but  expressly  {n)  an  indefinite  notion,  which 
must  receive  its  definition  from  the  context.  This  is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  clause  ha  fiij  j^w/ji?  rj/iciv  reXecw^'K^  For  the  force  of 
tva  would  be  connected  with  the  7:po,3X=:(/'a!J..,  and  it  would  be 
expressed,  that  God  did  something  better  for  us  in  order  that  they 
might  not  be  perfected  without  us,  which  makes  no  sense.  Nor 
is  it  made  sense  by  saying  :  "  The  divine  counsel  only  comes  into 
consideration  so  far  as  that  what  they  did  not  obtain,  he  would 
so  let  be  obtained  that  we  shall  not  be  lefl  out."  ^  That,  we 
believe,  is  what  the  passage  expresses.  It  could  not,  however,  be 
the  sense  of  the  construction  just  referred  to.  It  is  the  sense  of 
that  we  offer.     The  indefinite  x(jsitt6v  re  finds  its  definition  in  the 

foregoing    clause,    uux  ixo;j.{ffavro  rr//  i-ay-jTsXiaw,  t.  €.,    lU    the    tluug 

there  denied,  viz.,  that  they  received  the  promise.  The  better, 
providence  for  us  was,  that  they  received  not  the  promise,  antecedent 
to  which  their  perfecting  must  be  accomplished.  It  is  objected  to 
this  notion  "that  then  neither  a  less  good  thing  nor  a  worse 
thing  would  befall  us,  seeing  there  would  be  no  place  for  us  at 
all,"  *  the  meaning  of  this  being  that  when  believers  are  "  per- 
fected" that  finishes  all ;  then  is  heaven,  and  no  marriage  and  no 
posterity.  But  this  objection  has  force  against  our  interpretation 
only  as  amplified  by  the  fathers,  "who  commonly  expound 
iTzayyeXta  here  as  perfecUo  in  resurrectione  corporum,^^  i.  c,  the 
end  of  history,*  and  take  :  "  being  perfected  "  as  the  equivalent 
of :  "  receiving  the  promise."  But  even  then  the  interpretation 
is  not  rendered  absurd.  For  there  is  nothing  absurd  in  rejoicing 
that  God  has  ordered  the  history  of  grace  so  that  we  have  had 
time  to  be  born  and  to  share  the  glories  of  redemption  and  the 
promised  inheritance. 

But  the  Apostle  neither  expresses  nor  means,  that  had  "  all 
these  "  received  the  promise,  then  we  would  never  have  had  being 
to  partake  of  salvation.  He  has  already  iv.  1  sqq.  treated  the 
case  of  being  too  late  for  the  promise,  not  merely  as  conceivable 
but  as  actually  supposed  ;  and  in  that  connection  he  has  affirmed 
and  proved,  that  the  gospel  is  preached  to  us  as  well  as  to  the 
ancients,  and  concluded  with  the  exhortation  :  "  let  us  give  dili- 

1  As  von  Hof.  ^  von  Hof.  ^  von  Hof.  *  See  in  Del. 


xi.  39,  40.]  NOT    PEEFECTED    WITHOUT    US.  449 

gence  to  enter  into  that  rest."  It  is  this  that  underlies  the 
present  expression  when  he  says  :  God  has  provided  in  respect  to 
us  something  better  than  that  the  ancients  should  be  perfected 
and  receive  tlie  promise  M'itliout  us.  They  did  not  receive  that 
promise.  They  are  only  perfected  with  us.  The  same  consum- 
mation is  now  before  them  that  is  before  us.  And  with  this 
representation  the  mind  of  the  reader  is  prepared  for  the  inspir- 
ing conception  presented  xii.  1  sqq. 

Having  ascertained  the  meaning  of  the  first  clause  of  ver.  40, 
the  relation  of  the  second  :  that  (?>«)  they  should  not  without  us 
be  perfected,  is  obvious.  It  is  to  be  connected  with  :  they  did 
not  receive  the  promise.  The  tVa  has  its  proper  telic  force,  and  ex- 
presses, not  consequence,  but  the  aim  of  their  not  receiving  the 
promise.  But  this  does  not  make  a  mere  parenthesis  of:  God  hav- 
ing provided — ^better  for  us,  if  that  be  the  correct  rendering  ;  our 
rendering  does  not  present  the  difficulty.  For  the  r.fio[iXt<l).  expresses 
that  their  not  receiving  the  promise  was  due  to  a  providence  in 
respect  to  us  {jzs.p\  ijiid)'^'). 

That  providence  accomplished  the  redemption  of  the  heirs  of 
salvation  in  such  a  way  that  the  ancients  were  not  perfected 
without  us.  The  implied  meaning  of  this  expression  is, 
that  they  were  perfected  with  us.  To  be  perfected  and  to  receive 
the  promise  are  not  identical  notions  ;  ^  nor  are  they  to  be  referred 
to  the  same  period,  viz.,  the  final  consummation  (ix.  28).  At  x. 
14  we  have  seen  that  the  perfecting  of  believers  is  effected  by  the 
offering  of  Christ,  and  is  that  act  by  -which  they  are  brought  into 
a  perfect  relation  to  God,  so  that  they  may  draw  near  to  him 
boldly,  undeterred  by  the  consciousness  of  guilt.  As  i-elates  to 
Christ,  who  effects  this  perfection,  he  is  said  to  have  sanctified  and 
perfected  them  forever  when  his  sacrifice  was  accomplished.  As 
relates  to  believers,  they  are  represented  as  sanctified  and  perfected 
ipso  facto,  when  they  believe,  by  virtue  of  that  which  Christ  ac- 
complished by  his  sacrifice.  But  here  we  have  the  express  state- 
ment regarding  believers  before  Christ  came,  who  had  "  faith  on 
God"  (vi.  2),  that  God  provided  that  they  should  not  be  per- 
fected without  us,  implying  that  their  perfecting  was  accomplished 

^  Against  de  Wette,  etc. 

29 


450  DOCTRINAL   INFERENCES.  [xi.  39,  40. 

by  the  same  transaction  that  accomplished  ours.  In  the  case  of 
believers  dnce  Christ  came,  their  perfecting  takes  place  succes- 
sively in  time,  as  they  successively  become  united  to  Christ.  In 
the  case  of  believers  before  Christ  came,  the  only  conceivable 
notion  is,  that  they  all  at  the  same  time  were  perfected  when  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  was  accomplished.  This  was  not  merely  when  he 
died,  but  when  through  death  he  nullified  him  that  had  the  power 
of  death,  i.  e.,  the  devil,  and  delivered  them,  who  through  fear 
of  death,  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage  (ii.  14,  15). 

We  have  not,  then,  to  ask  :  ^  how  can  the  representation  that 
departed  believers,  as  well  those  that  still  live,  have  not  received 
the  promise  and  are  hereafter  to  be  perfected,  harmonize  with 
xii.  23,  where,  without  doubt,  the  Sixaun  rtT^XsiioiUvoi  include  the 
pious  ancients  ?  For  we  see  that  the  question  is  prompted  by  the 
erroneous  assumption  that :  receive  the  promise,  and  :  be  per- 
fected are  identical  notions.  But  it  is  even  obvious  at  a  glance  that 
there  is  no  discrepancy.  For  whatever  "  the  spirit  of  just  men 
made  perfect,"  may  be,  the  readers,  of  whom  the  Apostle  says :  "  ye 
are  come  to  the  spirits,"  etc.,  are  conceived  of  as  there  where  the  per- 
fected just  ones  are,  and  so  must  be  perfected  in  the  same  sense. 

Our  verses  justly  give  occasion  to  important  dogmatic  infer- 
ence.^ Appeal  is  made  to  ix.  15  as  erroneously  interpreted,  that 
there  it  is  expressed  that  Christ's  mediatorial  work  has  retro- 
spective efficacy,  by  which,  and  not  till  His  work  was  done,  the 
transgressions  of  the  pious  of  all  past  ages  against  the  law  were 
redeemed.  Combining  that  with  the  present  statement,  that  the 
ancient  believers  were  not  perfected  without  us,  the  inference  is 
made  that  they  awaited  in  an  intermediate  state.  Hades,  the  com- 
pletion of  Christ's  work.  Then  the  efficacy  of  His  work,  in  fact, 
He  Himself,  by  descending  into  Hades,  delivered  them,  taking 
them  with  Him  into  heaven.  Though  we  cannot  make  the  appeal 
to  ix.  15  in  precisely  this  way,  still,  as  we  have  pointed  out  the 
necessary  inference  from  ix.  15,  and  as  Ave  have  just  interpreted 
our  passage,  they  clearly  give  expression  to  this  thought.  We  have 
also  clearly  expressed  here  what  is  plainly  and  frequently  expressed 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  viz.,  that  believers  who  have  died 

1  As  de  Wette.  "^  See,  e.  r/.,  Del.,  Ebrard,  McLean. 


xii.  1.]        THE   SURROUNDING   CLOUD   OF   AVITNESSES.  451 

still  await  that  completion  of  salvation  that  is  the  goal  of  all 
Christ's  redemptive  work,  which  is  here  called  "  receiving  the 
promise,"  and  ix.  15  is  called  "receiving  the  everlasting  inheri- 
tance," and  ix.  28,  "  Christ's  appearing  a  second  time  for  salvation 
to  those  expecting  him,"  and  in  2  Tim.  iv.  8  is  called  "the  crown 
of  righteousness  which  the  Lord  shall  give  in  that  day  to  all  that 
have  loved  his  appearing." 

Ver.  1 .  Wherefore,  we  also,  having  such  a  cloud  of  witnesses 
surrounding  us,  laying  off  every  weight  and  the  closely  clinging 
sin,  let  us  run  with  patience  the  race  set  before  us. 

We  have  seen  how  the  the  foregoing  verses  (xi.  39,  40)  pre- 
pare for  this  impressive  exhortation.  The  "Wherefore  need  refer 
no  further  back  ;  for  the :  these  all  comprehends  all  that  could 
be  comprehended  by  referring  "Wherefore  to  all  of  chap.  xi.  By 
referring  it  only  to  verses  39,  40,  we  have  statements  about  the 
whole  list  of  ancients  that  make  the  premise  of  what  is  brought 
in  by  the  "Wherefore.^  If  they  died  without  receiving  the  promise, 
yet  through  life  showed  faith  as  is  witnessed  of  them,  then  let  us 
also  {y.o.i)  run  our  race  with  patience.  The  exhortation  is  graph- 
ically and  beautifully  given  by  representing  all  these  examples 
of  faith  as  a  surrounding  cloud  of  witnesses.  They  are  not  par- 
takers of  the  race  in  the  race-course.  Their  race  is  run  ;  they 
have  had  their  season  of  faith  and  patience.  They  are  an  attend- 
ing "crowd,"  which  is  expressed  by  v^^^^9  -  cloud,  and  by  which 
nothing  more  is  meant.^  By  iJ.apTopwv  is  not  meant  merely  spec- 
tators ;  yet  the  idea  of  spectators  is  not  excluded.  They  are  wit- 
nesses, in  the  double  sense  of  the  word  in  English,  being  such  as 
give  testimony  to  faith,  and  witness  as  spectators  of  the  effect  of 
their  testimony  in  us.^  Yet  it  is  pressing  the  expression  too  far  to 
say  that  our  text  implies  the  actual  presence  about  us  of  departed 
believers.  They  see  what  we  do  under  the  influence  of  their 
example,  in  such  a  sense  as  Abraham  is  said  to  have  seen  Christ's 
day.''  "  As  is  recognized  by  most  expositors,  Jesus  reveals  a  fact 
of  the  invisible  w^orld,  of  which  He  alone  had  the  knowledge. 

^  von  ITof.  '  Comp.  Alford. 

M  Tim,  vi.  12;  2  Tim.  ii.  2. 

*  von  Ilof. ;  comp.  Meyer,  Godet  on  John  viii.  56. 


452  ARE   THEY   OUR  SPECTATORS?  [xli.  1. 

As,  at  the  Transfiguration,  we  see  Moses  and  Elias  instructed 
about  the  circumstances  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  so  Jesus 
declares   that   Abraham,  the    father    of  the  believers,   did  not 
remain  a  stranger,  in  the  abode  of  glory,  to  the  fulfillment  of  the 
promise  made  to  him ;  but  that  he  contemplated  the  advent  of 
Christ  on  the  earth.     We  are,  indeed,  ignorant  of  the  way  in 
which  events  here  below  can  be  made  sensible  to  those  that  rest 
in  the  bosom  of  God.     Jesus  simply  affirms  the  fact."  ^     These 
representations  suit  very  well  to  those  ancients,  who,  as  it  is  inti- 
mated in  ver.  40,  having  finished  this  life,  and  having  since  been 
perfected,  are  with  Christ.     Being  perfected,  with  those  still  on 
earth,  by  the  same  offering  of  Christ,  for  which  they  waited,  there 
is  a  union  and  communion  between  them  and  those  that  have 
still  the  race  of  faith  to  run.     By  that  communion  they  surround 
the  latter ;  the  witness  borne  to  their  faith  makes  them  witnesses 
themselves  to  testify  that  by  faith  and  patience  the  promise  is  to 
be  inherited  and  at  last  received.  And  this  is  the  primary  notion. 
But  witnesses  of  this  sort  both  give  testimony  and  are  spectators 
while  they  do  so,  as  those  of  whom  Paul  speaks  to  Timothy, 
when  he  says  :  "  Fight  the  good  fight  of  faith,  lay  hold  on  tlie 
life  eternal,  where  unto  thou  wast  called,  and  didst  confess  the 
good  confession  in  the  sight  of  many  witnesses."  ^     So  these  wit- 
nesses are  spectators.     It  corroborates  this  interpretation  of  the 
Apostle's  meaning  to  notice,  that  in  vers.  22-24,  he  expresses  in 
another  form,  and  more  distinctly,  the  presence  in  communion 
with  us,  ivhere  we  are  come,  of  perfected  spirits,  angels  and  Christ. 
In  our  verse  the  reference  is  only  to  the  ancient  believers.     This 
is  because  they  only  have  been  mentioned  in  the  previous  dis- 
course, and  because  the  circumstances  to  which  the  Epistle  is  ad- 
dressed did  not  admit  of  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  believers  after 
Christ.     But  it  is  obvious  that  what  is  said  of  the  ancients  is 
equally  true  of  those  that  since  Christ's  death,  have  been  per- 
fected by  His  offering,  and  have  in  their  turn  died  without  re- 
ceiving the  promise  of  God,  i.  e.,  of  entering  God's  rest.     The 
latter  are  included,  indeed,  in  the  representation  ver.  23. 

Under  the  inspiring  and  animating  influence  of  the  surround- 
1  Godet  on  John  viii.  56.  "^  1  Tim.  vi.  12. 


xii.  2.]  THE   CLOSELY-CLINGING   SIN.  453 

ing  witnesses,  we  are  exhorted  to  run  our  race,  and  as  the  con- 
dition of  running  well,  we  are  to  lay  aside  every  weight,  as  racers 
will  do  in  an  earthly  course,  by  which  is  meant  any  thing  that  is 
superfluous  and  may  be  dispensed  with,  even  though  innocent  or 
indifferent ;  and  also  the  closely  clinging  sin.  EoTzepitTTa-d'^,  trans- 
lated "  easily  besetting,"  '  is  a  word  that  is  found  in  no  other 
Greek  author  who  does  not  quote  it  from  our  text.  The  most 
probable  meaning  is,  something  worn  that  is  likely  to  wand  itself 
about  the  limbs  as  one  runs.  Though  of  light  texture,  it  would 
impede  running  as  much  as  a  weight.  The  athletes  stripped 
naked  to  run  their  races.  Such  an  obstruction  to  running^  the 
race  of  faith  and  patience,  sin  would  be,  of  whatever  sort.  And 
what  the  Apostle  means  by  sin,  may  be  sin  of  any  sort.  But  the 
article,  and  the  qualification  by  a  peculiar  adjective,  and  the 
definiteness  of  "  the  sin  "  mentioned  ver.  4,  are  reasons  for  sup- 
posing that  by  *'  the  closely  clinging  sin  "  is  meant  the  temptation 
to  Judaize.  The  comparison  of  sin  to  a  closely  clinging  gar- 
ment is  particularly  appropriate,  as  compared  with  a  weight  that 
may  be  carried.  For  sin  is  part  of  our  person,  as  the  customary 
garments  seem  to  be. 

Let  us  also  run  with  patience,  expresses  by  the  also,  that  the 
ancients  ran  their  race  with  patience,  and  we  are  to  imitate  that 
patience  in  running.  The  5i  oTzo/iovi'^tT  =  hY  means  of  patience,  ex- 
presses that  patience  is  instrumental ly  the  condition  of  running 
the  race  at  all,  and  that  by  means  of  patience  it  will  be  run. 

Ver.  2  a.  Looking  unto  the  captain  and  perfecter  of  our  faith, 
Jesus 

At  ii.  10  the  appropriate  meaning  of  up/jjr''>'^  was  found  to  be : 
captain,^  and  that  meaning  must  be  retained  here,  instead  of 
"  Author."  ^  It  is  not  as  the  originator  or  source  of  our 
faith  that  Jesus  is  presented  here,  but  as  our  leader,*  under 
whose  direction  and  inspiring  example  we  run.  Accordingly, 
the  following  clause  represents  Him  as  "  fulfilling  His  course." 
This  npxw''''}  a  word  of  ascertained  meaning,  must  determine  for 
us  the  sense  in  which  the  Author  uses  reAejwDj'v  (which,  like  the 

1  Versions  IGll,  18SL  =>  Version  1881,  Margin. 

'  Versions  1011,  1881.  *  Comp.  iii.  14,  "  Companions  of  Christ." 


454  LOOKING    UNTO   THE   CAPTAIN,  [xii.  2. 

foregoing  ehnspiaTarov,  is  found  no  where  else  in  Greek  literature), 
and  not  viee  versa}  It  is  expedient  therefore  to  render  it :  per- 
fecter,  in  a  purely  etymological  way.  It  is  of  our  faitk  (r/]?  -iVttc  wf) 
that  Jesus  is  the  Captain  and  perfecter  ;  For  here,  if  ever,  the 
article  has  the  force  of  a  personal  pronoun  =  "  the  faith  that  is 
ours."  ^  And  nothing  justifies  us  in  imputing  faith  to  Him  in  any 
respect,^  any  more  than  we  may  impute  salvation  to  Him  ;  as  if  He 
were  saved  in  some  way,  because  He  is  called  o-pyj^yw  of  our  sal- 
vation,* As  He  gave  an  inspiring  example  of  life  for  the  world 
to  come,  and  thus  is  the  leader  of  us  who  must  live  the  same  life 
by  faith,  so,  as  He  is  set  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 
God,  He  is  the  inspiring  evidence  and  representation  of  what  is 
the  goal  of  our  race,  where  he  Himself  will  bring  us.  Such  we 
suppose  is  the  correspondence  between  the  designations  captain 
and  perfecter,  and  the  following  representation  of  wliat  Jesus 
did.  For  it  is  evident  that :  who  for  the  joy  ....  tkrone  of  God, 
is  intended  to  vepresent  wherein  we  find  Jesus  an  afr/r^yu^j  Aai 
T£?.etujzrjv.  The  Apostle  thus  represents  Jesus  with  the  surround- 
ing cloud  of  witnesses,  as  if  in  view  ;  and  truly  in  view  to  faith. 
He  does  not,  however,  represent  Him  in  the  same  way,  as  at  the 
head  of  the  host  of  those  that  have  given  example  of  faith  ;  ^  but 
in  a  distinct  and  eminent  way,  just  as  in  vers.  23,  24.  While  the 
great  cloud  of  witnesses  look  on  us,  we  are  to  look  to  Jesus,  and 
see  in  Him  wliat  He  is  described  to  be,  which  is  something  very 
different  in  itself  and  in  its  influence  on  us,  from  what  the  cloud 
of  ancient  examples  of  faith  are. 

Ver.  2.  6.  Who  for  the  joy  set  before  Mm  endured  the  cross, 
despising  shame,  and  hath  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne 
of  God. 

Beside  what  has  been  necessarily  remarked  on  this  by  antici- 
pation, the  following  points  need  explanation.  A  natural  ren- 
dering of  dvri  is,  "  instead  of."  So  rendered,  this  clause  would 
express  that  Jesus  endured  the  cross  instead  of  choosing  rather 
some  joy  that  might  have  been  His.     And  so  it  has  been  iuter- 

^  Against  von  Hof.  '  Kiihner,  Gram.,  II.,  p.  482. 

*  Against  Ebrard,  de  Wette,  Davidson. 

*  ii.  10.  *  Against  de  Wette,  etc. 


xii.  2.]  WHO   ENDURED  THE  CROSS.  455 

preted  by  ancients  and  moderns ;  ^  some  understanding  by  the 
joy,  the  bliss  of  heaven  that  Jesus  left  to  do  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion,^ others,  the  happiness  that  Jesus  might  honestly  have  had, 
seeing  no  sin  in  Him  incurred  the  infliction  of  suffering.^  But  it 
has  been  satisfactorily  objected  to  this  interpretation,  that  the 
bliss  of  heaven,  as  something  "  set  before  "  the  Son  of  God  in  His 
pre-existent  state,  is  an  incongruous  notion.  It  is  also  in  conflict 
Math  every  scriptural  representation  concerning  Christ,  to  suppose 
that  the  pleasures  of  human  life  were  ever  "  set  before  "  Him  by 
any  other  than  Satan  in  the  temptation.  Those  who  think  of 
the  latter,  i.  e.,  worldly  pleasure,  mean  chiefly  that  Jesus  might 
have  been  exempt  from  everything  that  molests.  But  that  is  a 
very  negative  notion  to  express  by  /«/?«=  joy.  Alford  justly 
urges  also  that  x^^p^  can  hardly  be  "  used  of  a  state  of  bliss  in 
which  one  already  is,  a  quiescent  or  pre-existent  joy,  but  more 
naturally  applies  to  joy  prompted  by  some  cause  of  active  rejoic- 
ing." It  is  preferable  on  every  account,  as  it  is  quite  in  harmony 
with  the  progress  of  thought  in  the  context,  to  understand  this 
clause  in  the  w'ay  that  is  now  most  usual.  Jesus,  for  the 
reward  of  His  n\ediatorial  work,  as  believers  for  "the  everlasting 
inheritance,"  endured  the  cross,  despised  shame,  and  has  sat  down 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God.  The  perfect  expresses 
that  Jesus  is  there  now  ;  and  there  it  is  we  look  when  we  look 
unto  Him,  and  there  the  cloud  of  witnesses  are  with  Him.  This 
need  not  mean  that  the  session  at  the  right  hand  is  the  joy,  in  the 
prospect  of  which  He  did  as  described.  That  is  no  more  the 
consummation  of  His  joy  as  Mediator,  than  to  be  with  Him  is  for 
believers  the  consummation  of  salvation  and  receiving  the  crown. 
But  when  He  sat  at  the  right  hand,  His  sufferings  and  shame 
were  })ast.  Following  Him  there  brings  the  believer  also  to  the 
end  of  his  race.  According  to  the  representation  of  our  epistle, 
Jesus  waits  at  the  right  hand  till  He  comes  again  unto  salvation 
for  those  that  expect  His  appearing.  ]5eliovers  who  have  finished 
their  course  wait  with  Him  where  He  is  for  that  appearing.  Such 
is  the  situation  that  justifies  the  representation  of  our  verses  1,  2, 
in  which  the  perfected  saints  (vers.  23,  24),  and  Jesus  appear 

^Hee  in  Alford.  *  Comp.  Phil.  iii.  6-11.  'So,  e.  g.,  Calvin. 


456  FOR  CONSIDER  HIM,  [xii.  3. 

too'ether  as  attending  the  life  of  faith  of  those  who  still  have  their 
race  to  run. 

Ver.  3.  For  consider  him  that  hath  endured  such  contradiction 
of  sinners  against  himself  (favroi^),  that  ye  may  not  grow  weary,  faint- 
ing in  your  souls. 

The  relation  expressed  here  by  :  For  is  that  it  introduces  the 
reason  for  looking  to  Jesus  as  the  foregoing  verse  has  directed. 
Our  verse  bids  the  readers  institute  a  comparison  (avaXoyiaaad^e), 
for  such  is  the  significance  of  the  word.  As  the  following  verse 
shows,  it  is  a  comparison  of  their  experience  with  that  of  Jesus. 
In  the  light  of  that,  the  readers  must  feel  the  motive  for  running 
their  race  with  patience,  as  they  must  at  the  thought  of  the  sur- 
rounding cloud  of  witnesses  that  have  run  their  race  with 
patience.  The  Apostle  expresses  the  point  that  he  would  have 
appear  by  the  comparison.  As  comparison  is  intended,  there  is, 
first,  something  in  common,  and  then  something  that  is  different. 
The  thing  in  common  is  enduring  contradiction.  ^  If  the  read- 
ers experienced  that,  as  they  expressly  did,^  so  also  did  Jesus. 
What  Jesus  endured  directly,  they  endured  because  they  confessed 
Jesus.  But  this  is  the  difference  :  Jesus  endured  the  contradic- 
tion of  sinners  against  himself,  which  is  so  expressed  as  to  sig- 
nify an  antithesis  between  Himself  and  sinners,  and  denote  that  He 
as  sinless  encountered  the  opposition  and  malignity  of  sinners,^ and 
such  was  not  the  case  of  the  readers.  Without  such  antithesis,  the 
£h  iauzov  is  redundant.*  Moreover,  Jesus  endured  such  {rmanrrjv) 
contradiction,  the  reference  being  to  the  shame  and  cruelty  of  the 
cross  already  expressed. 

The  consideration  of  this  difference  must  keep  the  reader  from 
fainting  in  soul  and  growing  weary  in  running,  as  one  who  runs 
a  race  becomes  faint-hearted  when  his  knees  become  weak.  For 
these  expressions  are  used  with  reference  to  the  image  of  running 
a  race,  used  ver.  1. 

Ver.  4.  Ye  have  not  yet  resisted  unto  blood  striving  against  the 
sin,  5  a,  and  have  forgotten  the  exhortation  which  reasons  with  you 
as  with  sons : 

1  Comp.  Acts  xiii.  45 ;  xxviii.  22.  "  x.  32-34. 

3  Comp.  1  Peter  ii.  21,  23.  *  So  von  Hof. 


xii.  4,]  NO   MEKE   BOXING   CONTEST.  457 

The  inference  of  the  foregoing  comparison  Avith  Jesus  was  that 
the  readers  had  not  suiFered  enough  to  excuse  their  dishearteu- 
ment.  This  thought  is  here  expressly  uttered,  but  with  a  change 
of  figure.  The  Apostle  changes  from  the  race-course  to  the  box- 
ing areua.^  This  is  no  mixing  of  figures.  It  marks  a  transition 
to  fresh  matter  of  admonition.  The  race-course  figure  represents 
what  the  readers  have  yet  to  do.  The  boxing  figure  [fh-ayujwi!^6- 
fis'yai)  describes  what  they  had  been  doing.  Their  contest  with 
the  sin  had  been  mere  boxing,  and  not  "  blood-earnestness,"  as 
appeared  from  the  fact  that  no  life  had  been  lost  in  the  struggle. 
For  such  we  suppose  is  the  meaning  of  unto  blood,  and  not  that 
the  blood-letting  is  meant,  that  ofleu  attended  boxing,  and  that 
they  had  only  had  bruises  and  no  blood  drawu.^  It  encourages 
this  interpretation  that,  in  x.  32  sqq.,  the  account  of  what  the 
readers  suiFered  stops  short  of  mentioning  bloodshed  and  martyr- 
dom. The  Apostle  says  the  sin,  which  must  mean  that  referred  to 
x.  26,  since  nothing  else  that  is  said  in  the  epistle  can  answer  to  such 
a  definite  notion.  The  sin  of  turning  from  Christ  to  trusting  in 
legal  ordinances,  as  it  was  their  temptation  through  "  the  contra- 
diction "  of  such  as  crucified  Jesus,  so  it  was  to  be  withstood  in 
the  persons  of  such  ;  and  withstanding  was  likely  to  involve  death 
as  it  did  the  death  of  Jesus.  It  had  not  come  to  this  ;  and  the 
Apostle  intimates  that  this  was  owing  to  the  way  they  had 
striven,  as  merely  boxing.  A  sin  so  great,  with  consequences  so 
fearful,  must  be  resisted  with  the  earnestness  that  will  give  up 
life's  blood  rather  than  yield. 

The  light  way  in  which  the  readers  had  treated  the  struggle 
the  Apostle  makes  the  ground  for  an  inference  that  they  had  for- 
gotten one  important  truth  of  Divine  providence.  For  the  xa{  = 
and,  does  not  merely  conjoin  an  additional  thought.  It  has  a  log- 
ical force  =  and  so,^  introducing  an  inference  from  what  has  just 
been  stated.  Believers  that  have  acted  as  the  readers  have  done, 
show  that  they  have  forgotten  that  God  chastens  his  children. 
The  meaning  is,  that  they  have  supposed  that  God  could  not 
mean  them  to  undergo  such  suffering  as  must  attend  unyielding 

'  Bengel.  ^  Against  von  Ilof.,  Alford. 

3  Kuhner  Gram.  II.,  p.  792,  ?  521,  5. 


458  A   FORGOTTEN   EXHORTATION.  [xii.  5,  6 

resistance  of  the  sin.  This  was  forgetting  the  declaration  of  the 
Scripture  that  was  directly  to  the  contrary.  It  is  Pro  v.  iii.  11 
sqq.  that  is  referred  to.  Before  quoting  it,  the  Apostle  describes 
the  tenor  of  it.  It  is  an  exhortation.  It  is  such  as  (fin^)  reasons 
with  believers  ;  and  the  language  of  expostulation  in  the  citation 
(despise  not,  neither  faint,  for  whom  the  Lord,  etc.)  as  well  as  the 
tenor  of  the  whole  section  from  which  it  is  taken  justifies  his 
calling  it  reasoning  with  them  (dca^^iyeTac).  It  does  this  as  with 
sons,  as  the  expression  :  my  son,  and  a  parental  tone  throughout 
the  context  evinces.  It  is  the  passage  or  exhortation  itself  that 
thus  reasons;  the  Apostle  does  not  say  that  God  does,  though 
such  is  the  fact.  The  important  thing  is  :  what  is  said,  and  that 
it  is  Scriptural.  The  point  is,  that  a  passage  of  Scripture,  that 
breathes  the  spirit  of  a  father,  declares  sucJi  things  about  suffer- 
ing and  chastisement. 

Ver.  5  b.  My  son,  regard  not  lightly  the  chastening  of  the  Lord, 
nor  faint  when  thou  art  reproved  of  him.  6.  For  whom  the  Lord 
loveth  he  chasteneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth. 
This  quotation  is  not  an  exact  reproduction  of  the  LXX.,  nor 
is  it  an  exact  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  original.  "  It  shows  that 
the  Author  was  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew."  ^  The  changes 
from  the  LXX.  are  in  the  direction  of  closer  conformity  to  the 
Hebrew,  while  at  the  same  time  they  are  such  as  adapt  the  pas- 
sage more  to  the  use  to  which  the  Apostle  applies  it.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  the  interpretation  of  our  text  to  consider  the  critical 
and  exegetical  questions  that  arise  from  a  comparison  of  the 
words  as  we  find  them  here,  and  in  the  LXX.,  and  the 
Hebrew.  This  is  done  very  thoroughly  by  von  Hofmann. 
What  the  Apostle  says,  using  of  the  language  in  Proverbs,  is  not 
with  a  view  to  comforting  the  readers.  As  found  here  and  in 
their  original  context,  they  are  commonly  used  in  that  way,  and 
with  great  propriety.  But  the  Apostle's  use  of  them  is  for 
admonition  and  exhortation,  and  that  with  some  severity ;  for 
which  there  seems  sufficient  reason.^  He  calls  it  vj  Trapd-Arjffc^-  = 
the  exhortation,  the  word  having  the  same  meaning  here  as  at 
xiii.  22,  where  it  characterizes  the  whole  epistle.  His  readers 
^vonHo£  ^Against  Del. 


xii.  7.]  IT   IS   FOR    CHASTENING   YE   ENDURE.  459 

would  notice  that  he  changes  the  IXiy/^i  of  the  LXX.  to  naiSeuec, 
i.  e.,  from  ''reprove"  to  "chasten."'  He  chastens,  consists  bet- 
ter with  the  relation  of  father  and  son,  and  with  the  state  of 
things  that  calls  for  this  admonition.^  The  smiting;  and  cliasten- 
ing  are  the  notions  of  the  passage  that  are  emphasized,  and  that 
make  it  so  appropriate  for  the  Author's  purpose.  Thus,  instead 
of  the  Hebrew  that  reads :  "As  a  father  with  a  son  he  takes 
delight,"^  the  Apostle  adheres  to  the  incorrect  rendering  of  the 
LXX.  He  scourges  every  son  whom  he  receiveth.  The  Apostle 
shows  his  mastery  of  the  Scriptures  equally  by  correcting  and  by 
adopting  the  rendering  of  the  LXX.  It  is  not  his  purpose  to 
express  that  God  loves  though  He  does  chasten  ;  but  that  He 
chastens  and  smites,  though  He  is  a  father,  i.  e.,  loves.^ 

The  Apostle,  as  we  have  noted,  appeals  to  the  Scripture, 
blaming  his  readers  with  forgetting  what  is  there  made  so  plain, 
and  should  be  so  familiar.  They  were  fainting  instead  of  fight- 
ing ;  they  recognized  the  need  of  "  striving  against  the  sin,"  to 
the  extent  of  making  it  a  boxing  affair,  but  not  a  bloody  conflict. 
The  particular  language  of  Scripture  with  which  he  would  con- 
front them  is  in  the  words :  "  My  son,  regard  not  lightly  the 
chastening  of  the  Lord,  nor  faint  when  thou  art  rebuked  of 
him."  But  the  rest  of  the  quotation  is  too  closely  interwoven  in 
sense  as  well  as  structure  to  be  omitted.  It  brings  in,  however, 
by  its  pointed  affirmation,  the  notion  of  the  spirit  and  significance 
of  Divine  chastening.  The  Apostle,  then,  lets  this  give  the 
impulse  to  the  progress  of  his  thought,  and  applies  it  to  the  suf- 
fering situation  of  the  readers.  He  maintains  the  severity,  but 
blends  with  it  consolation  and  encouragement.  Thus  he  follows  the 
last  words  of  his  quotation  with  an  inference  as  quick  and  obvious 
as  light. 

A'^er.  7  a.  It  is  for  ^  chastening  ye  endure ;  God  deals  with  you 
as  with  sons. 

It  is  thus,  with  the  force  of  Scripture  warrant  for  it,  that  the 
Apostle  stamps  the  sufferings  the  readers  endured,  and  reveals 
their  true  nature,  and  points  to  what  they  signify.     It  is  the  seal 

^  See  Rev.  iii.  19,  wlicre  both  are  used.  ^  von  Ilof. 

*  Del.  *  von  Ilof.  *  elg  instead  of  el,  see  AUord. 


460  THE   SEAL   OP   SONSHIP.  [xii.  8. 

of  their  being  sons  of  God.  If  God  deals  with  them  as  sons, 
then  they  are  sous  that  God  is  dealing  with.  And  the  further 
discourse  shows  that  it  is  the  latter  notion  that  is  meant  to  be 
prominent.  There  is  such  force  in  the  present  tense  here  used.^ 
God  deals  with  you  as  sons,  is  not  the  use  of  the  present  tense  in 
the  common  form  of  stating  an  abstract  proposition./The  Apostle 
speaks  to  the  concrete  case.  His  readers  are  enduring  conflict 
with  its  attendant  suiferiug.  The  meaning  of  that  is  chastening, 
such  chastening  as  the  Proverb  describes.  And  the  meaning  of 
chastening  is  that  God  deals  with  them  as  sons.  It  was  at  ii.  1 0  sq. 
that  we  last  had  the  expression :  sons  applied  to  those  whom 
God  leads  to  glory.  There  the  Apostle  speaks  of  them  in  the 
third  person.  Now  he  speaks  of  the  readers  as  sons  in  the  sec- 
ond person.  But  the  present  seal  of  their  sonship  is  suffering, 
not  glory.     The  glory  is  yet  to  be  revealed.*^ 

The  thought  already  expressed  is  continued  and  enforced  argu- 
mentatively. 

Ver.  7  6.  For  what  son  is  there  whom  his  father  chasteneth 
not? 

This  is  an  appeal  to  the  general  in  support  of  the  particular. 
The  idea  of  the  parental  or  filial  relation  involves  parental  chas- 
tisement of  the  son.  Thus  sous  of  God  must  expect  chastise- 
ment from  God.  AVhat  is  affirmed  here  interrogatively,  as  self- 
evidential,  prepares  the  dilemma;  either  accept  and  endure 
chastisement  from  God,  or  renounce  the  name  of  so^., 

Ver.  8.  But  if  ye  are  without  chastisement,  of  which  all  have 
become  partakers,  then  are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sons." 

The  -riv/re?  =  all,  does  not  refer  to  any  persons  that  have  been 
adduced  as  suffering  chastisement,  e.g.,  those  mentioned  in  chap- 
ter xi.*  Our  verse  has  the  foregoing  verse  as  its  logical  premise, 
which  affirms  interrogatively  that  all  who  are  sons  do  suffer 
chastisements.  It  is  this  general  that  is  resumed  in  our  expres- 
sion :  of  which  all  are  partakers,  in  order  to  make,  in  effect, 

1  Kiehm,  pp.  758  sq.  ^  Comp.  Rom.  viii.  18. 

'  von  Hof.  would  connect  the  following  sha  with  what  precedes  it,  and  not 
with  what  follows,  and  would  translate :  "  and  not  sons  then." 
*  Against  Liin.,  Del. 


xii.  8.]  BASTARDS   NOT  SONS.  4G1 

though  not  formally,  a  complete  syllogism  of  our  verse.  If  all 
sons  are  partakers  of  chastisement,  and  the  readers  are  without 
it,  then  they  are  no  sous.  The  representation  is  in  general 
respecting  the  notion  :  sons ;  but  it  is  meant  to  a])ply  to  the  par- 
ticular :  sons  of  God  ;  which  application  the  reader  must  nec- 
essarily make  himself.  \  The  notion  of  not  sons,  is  emphasized  by 
an  affirmative  contrary  :  bastards.  The  intended  antithesis  is : 
genuine  and  spurious ;  and  giving  precision  to  his  thought  in 
this  fashion,  is  justified  by  the  situation.  The  Apostle's  readers 
professed  to  be  the  people  of  God,  i.  e.,  sons.  If  they  were  not 
truly  sons,  the  proper  designation  for  them  would  be  bastards.^ 
This  antithesis  of  sons  and  bastards,  however,  is  neither  self- 
evident  nor  natural.  The  notion  :  not  sons,  is  realized  in  slave, 
enemy,  foreigner,  and  many  things  in  fact,  any  one  of  which 
w^ould  quite  as  well,  or  even  better,  signify  one  that  can  have  no 
share  in  the  paternal  care  of  God,  if  that^  were  what  the 
Apostle  means  to  signify  by :  bastards.  The  idea  that  the 
Author  means  by  v6>^hit  children  of  adultery,  whom  the  mother 
would  impose  on  her  husband  as  his,*  seems  incongruous  in  the 
last  degree,  von  Hofmann  interprets  as  follows  :  God  has  no 
children  but  those  that  are  legitimate.  On  his  part,  then,  we 
cannot  be  xjfhn.  But  he  leaves  none  of  his  children  Avithout 
chastisement.  Thus  the  premise  :  "  if  ye  are  without  chastise- 
ment," expresses  what  in  reality  does  not  occur.  But  if  it  is 
assumed  as  real,  it  has  as  a  consequence  what  exists  in  reality  as 
little  as  the  other.  Such  a  filial  relation  to  God  must  be  another 
than  that  on  which  God  visits  chastisement ;  he  must  have 
begotten  them  illegitimately,  and  hence  he  does  not  bring  them 
up  with  and  like  His  legitimate  children.  But  as  there  are  none 
such,  then  they  are  not  any  way  children  of  God.  von  Hof- 
mann adds,  that  the  words  do  not  express  this  unless  the  apodosis 
includes  the  Avord  elra,  so  as  to  read  xai  oh-/^  uUn  el-ra  ;  which  con- 
struction he  defends  by  reasons  respecting  the  use  of  elra.  This 
seems,  however,  only  a  very  cumbersome  way  of  reiterating: 
ye  are  not  sons.     We  prefer  the   explanation,  that  we   find    in 

'  Comp.  Calvin.  '  So  Chrysostom,  and  many  since,  e.  g.,  Del.,  Alford. 

'  GrotiuB. 


462  v6nin.  [xii.  8. 

Lindsay  which,  because  of  the  little  notice  taken  of  it,  deserves 
amplification.  It  seems  evident  that  the  ground  for  the  antithe- 
sis of  sons  and  bastards  is  in  the  elements  of  the  situation  to 
which  the  Author  writes,  and  his  way  of  regarding  it.  If  the 
Author  be  Paul,  we  are  justified  in  interpreting  him  here  by  his 
expressed  sentiments  in  Gal.  iv.  21-31.  We  may  do  so  any 
way,  seeing  it  is  manifest  that  our  Author  has  so  much  of  Paul's 
way  of  thinking.  In  the  letter  to  the  Galatians  the  Apostle 
contends  against  the  Judaizing  spirit,  and  the  disposition  of  his 
readers  to  use  legal  ordinances,  quite  as  he  does  here,  except  that 
he  writes  to  Gentiles  and  not  Jews.  In  Gal.  iv.  21  sqq.,  he 
uses  the  story  of  Hagar  and  her  son  and  Sarah  and  her  son  as 
an  allegory,  to  represent  the  relations  of  those  who  profess  to  be 
God's  people  on  the  ground  of  the  law  given  at  Sinai,  and  those 
who  profess  the  same  on  the  ground  of  faith  in  Christ.  The 
former  he  likens  to  the  son  of  the  handmaid,  the  latter  to  the 
son  of  the  free  woman  and  real  wife.  In  our  context  the  Author 
is  dealing  with  another  aspect  of  the  same  problem.  His  read- 
ers were  flinching  before  Jewish  persecution  that  could  only  be 
escaped  by  conforming  to  Judaism.  The  being  without  chastise- 
ment was  in  this  particular  case  to  turn  to  legal  ordinances ;  for 
only  in  that  way  were  the  "contradictions"  to  be  escaped,  whereby 
the  chastisement  came.  The  alternative  was  to  be  truly  and 
only  Christian,  i.  e.,  to  have  faith  unto  salvation,  and  thus  to 
endure  suffering ;  or  to  escape  suffering  by  Judaizing.  This  is 
the  situation  that  offers  the  antithesis,  that  the  Apostle  charac- 
terizes by  sons  and  bastards.  He  does  this  from  the  view  point 
that,  in  Gal.  iv.  21  sqq.,  prompts  the  representation  there.  In 
Greek  relations,  vw-'/f^c  was  the  designation  for  sons  begotten  of  a 
female  slave.^  They  were  not  treated  in  education  or  inheritance 
as  legitimate  sons.  There  is  a  relation  of  not  sons  to  God,  that 
is  not  that  of  enemy,  or  foreigner,  or  slave.  It  is  that  of  a  Jew 
whose  relation  to  God,  for  he  has  one,  is  determined  by  that  law 
that  God  gave  his  chosen  people.  That  relation  of  not  sons  is 
expressed  in  Gal.  iv.  21  sqq.  by  "  son  of  the  handmaid."  In  the 
case  to  which  our  context  speaks  it  is  quite  as  appropriate  to 
*  See  Passow,  Lex.,  svh  voc. 


xii.  9.]  THE   FATHER  OF  SPIRITS.  463 

express  it  by  bastards.  It  is  some  encouragement  to  the  inter- 
pretation thus  derived  from  Gal.  iv.  to  notice,  that,  as  we  there 
find  Mt.  Sinai  opposed  to  the  Jerusalem  that  is  above,  to  express 
the  relation  of  the  law  and  of  faith  in  Christ,  so  also,  a  few 
verses  later  in  our  context  (vers.  18-24),  the  same  contrast  is 
presented,  though  with  much  and  different  amplification.  This 
is  additional  evidence  that  the  Author  in  our  verse  speaks  from 
the  same  underlying  notions  that  prompt  the  representations  in 
Gal.  iv.  In  Gal.  iv.  the  casting  out  of  the  bond  woman  and  her 
son  allegorizes  what  must  be  the  treatment  by  God  of  those  whose 
relation  to  Him  is  only  that  of  law.  In  our  text,  what  those 
may  expect  whose  relation  is  expressed  by  "  bastards "  is  not 
further  expressed  than  that  they  are  without  chastisement,  which 
is  the  ground  for  inferring  what  they  are. 

Ver.  9,  Furthermore,  we  had  the  fathers  of  our  iiesh  as  chas- 
tizers,  and  we  gave  them  reverence ;  shall  we  not  much  rather  be 
in  subjection  to  the  father  of  spirits  and  live  ? 

The  appeal  has  just  been  to  what  is  true  of  (the  ideal  of)  all 
fathers  and  sons,  in  order  to  infer  the  particular  of  what  must  be 
true  of  God  as  a  Father  and  of  His  sons.  Now  the  appeal  is  to 
a  distinction,  wherein  God  as  a  Father  is  superior  to  common 
fathers ;  and  from  justifying  the  experience  of  chastisement,  the 
thought  proceeds  to  enjoin  how  the  chastisement  should  be 
accepted.  The  first  clause  expresses  its  predicate  in  the  im]>erfect 
as  representing  a  past  experience  of  a  continued  and  habitual 
thing.  To  our  fathers  in  respect  to  the  flesh  ("  for  t?;?  (rafi/.o^  is 
the  nearer  definition  of  ol  -arips^  yj/xdt'/')  ^  is  opposed  :  the  Father 
of  Spirits,  where  the  article  of  tu>v  meundzw^,  may  have  the  force 
of  the  possessive  our.  These  expressions  are  derived  from  Num. 
xvi.  22  ;  xxvii.  16,  where  the  Hebrew :  ''  God  of  the  spirits  of 
all  flesh  "  is  rendered  by  the  LXX.  :  "  God  of  the  spirits  and  of 
all  flesh."  The  Apostle's  expressions  are  made  in  consistence 
with  the  Hebrew,  making  God  the  originator  of  the  spirits  of  all 
flesh,  while  the  parentage  of  the  flesh  is  attributed  to  men, 
another  evidence  that  the  Author  was  familiar  with  the  original 
Hebrew  and  by  no  means  dependent  on  the  LXX.  translation.^ 

*  von  Hof.,  comp.,  e.  g.,  vi.  1.  ^  So  von  Ilof . 


464  THE    FATHERS   OF   OUR    FLESH.  [xii.  10. 

So  far  as  the  expressions  before  us  tlirow  light  on  the  debate  con- 
cerning trackicianism  and  creationism  ^  it  is  in  favor  of  the  views 
represented  by  the  latter  name.^  But  that  subject  is  incidental, 
and  has  little  to  do  with  interpreting  what  the  Apostle  is  now 
urging.  The  contrast  of  the  two  parental  relations  here  expressed 
is  to  signify  the  superiority  of  that  found  in  God,  and  thus  the 
greater  obligation  to  submit  to  his  chastisement.  It  is  with  the 
flesh  and  its  existence  that  earthly  parents  deal.\^  The  emphatic 
way  in  which :  we  shall  live  (C^yVi^/jisv)  is  said  in  the  claase  that 
speaks  of:  our  spirit,  shows  that  "flesh  and  spirit"  are  here  con- 
trasted in  that  way  that  is  common  in  Paul's  epistles.^  The 
present  context,  however,  does  not  deal  with  the  whole  of  that 
antithesis,  but  simply  with  flesh  as  inferior  and  perishable,  and 
spirit  as  superior  and  destined  to  live.  To  parents  that  were 
only  such  for  the  flesh,  we  showed  reverence.  /  But  God  is  the 
source  of  our  spirits  and  deals  with  them,  giving  them  life  and, 
sustaining  that  life.  Shall  we  not  rather  be  in  subjection  to  him? 
The  argument  is  a  minore  ad  majus,  and  :  subjection  is  intended 
to  express  a  higher  degree  of  the  same  thing  that  is  expressed 
by  reverence. 

Ver.  10.  For  they,  indeed,  chastened  us  for  a  few  days  as  to 
them  seemed  good,  but  he  unto  profit  for  [our]  partaking-  of  his 
holiness. 

The //iv — !^i  only  mark  antithesis;  and  translating  the  iJ.i'^-= 
"  verily  "  *  gives  in  English  an  emphasis  to  the  first  clause  that 
is  not  intended.  The  contrast  of  parents  presented  in  ver.  9  is 
particularized  here,  not  by  way  of  example,  but  in  the  particu- 
lar respect  for  which  the  Author  makes  the  contrast ;  for  he  is 
speaking  of  chastisements.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  con- 
trasts a  low  ideal  of  earthly  parents  and  of  parental  motive  with 
the  divine  parental  relation.  This,  however,  is  the  impression 
made  by  the  rendering :  "  after  their  own  pleasure,"  ^  wliich 
seems  to  describe  the  chastisement  of  earthly  parents  as  capricious 
and   having    respect  to  their   advantage  and   not   the   child's. 

^  See  Del.  '  So  Del.,  Riehm.  ^  With  Ebrard ;  against  Del. 

*  Versions  of  1611,  1881.  *  Version  of  1611. 


xii.  11.]    CHASTENING    FOR   TIME   AND    FOR   ETERNITY.  465 

According  to  that,  the  antithesis  would  seem  to  be,  that  God,  on 
the  contrary,  chastens  for  our  profit.  If  such  were  the  empha- 
sis, the  personal  pronoun  :  "  our  "  would  need  to  be  expressed  ; 
whereas  we  read  only  i-\  rd  auiitpipov.  The  Author  contrasts  a 
good  ideal  of  earthly  parent  with  our  divine  parent ;  and  the  best 
motives  of  the  former  with  the  aim  of  the  latter.  The  former, 
he  says,  chastened  (imperfect)  r-ara  -«  (io7,nTw  avroi'i,  by  which  is 
meant,  according  to  such  wisdom  as  they  had  ;  as  the  I'Sa^i  /jah  * 
of  Luke  i.  3  expresses  that  the  Evangelist  is  moved  to  write 
according  to  his  best  judgment  of  what  the  circumstances 
demand.  The  point  of  contrast  is,  that  so  chastising,  they  did  it : 
npdi  6?.tya^  rj'i.ipa^  =  for  a  few  days-  By  this  is  not  expressed  the 
time  during  which  they  chastised,  but  the  period  for  which  their 
chastisement  availed.  "  As  tt/x)?  tu  r.apo'j  (ver.  11)  means,  not  while 
it  lasts,  but  for  the  continuance  of  the  present,  and  as  naioios<T<'tat. 
TTpu<i  TO  iiillov  ^  means  :  to  learn  wit  for  the  future,"  so  our  phrase 
means  to  chastise  one  for  a  short  period,  i.  e.,  for  a  brief  benefit.' 
This  interpretation  is  in  harmony  with  the  idea  of  earthly  parents 
expressed  in  the  foregoing  verse,  where,  as  we  have  seen,  they  are 
called  :  "fathers  of  the  flesh,"  with  respect  to  the  temporal  and 
mortal  nature  of  that  relation.  Corresponding  to  that,  such 
chastisement  as  they  gave  is  here  described  as  having  a  propor- 
tionate efficacy,  i.  e.,  for  a  little  while.  On  the  other  hand,  and 
in  similar  correspondence  to  the  designation  :  "  Father  of  spirits," 
and  to  the  affirmation  that  to  "  be  in  subjection  to  him  is  to  live," 
our  verse  says,  that  God  chastens  us  unto  profit,  which  profit  it 
interprets  to  be  that :  we  may  be  partakers  of  his  holiness.  As 
this  is  an  abiding  relation  and  so  an  abiding  advantage,  it 
expresses  a  contrast  with  :  "  for  a  few  days,"  without  needing  a 
more  exact  antithesis.  "  It  is  not  the  duration  of  the  chastise- 
ment that  is  the  point  of  the  passage ;  it  is  the  duration  of  our 
relation  in  each  case  to  him  who  chastens."  * 

Ver.  11.  All  chastisement  for  the  present  indeed  seems  not  to 
be  matter  of  joy,  but  of  grief,  but  afterward  it  jrields  peaceable 
fruit  of  righteousness  to  those  that  have  been  exercised  by  it. 

»  Comp.  Acts  XV.  22,  25,  28.  «  Polyb.,  2,  9,  6. 

'  So  von  Hof.,  Del.  *  Davidson. 

80 


466  CHASTISEMENT   NOT    JOYOUS.  [xii.  11. 

In  the  uncertain  condition  of  the  text  with  reference  to  Tzaaa 
di  or  ndffa  jiiv,  it  seems  preferable  to  translate  without  reference 
to  either  particle.  In  the  first  clause  we  have  an  ambiguous 
construction,  viz.,  we  may  connect  -^i)?  to  r.apuv  with  -Kaidia  or 
with  ob  8oxel,  and  translate  "  chastisement  for  the  present "  or 
"  seems  for  the  present."  We  think,  however,  as  intimated  under 
the  foregoing  verse,  that :  chastisement  for  the  present  expresses 
the  subject,  of  which  it  is  predicated  that  it  seems  not  a  matter 
of  joy.  This  exactly  resumes  the  notion  of  chastisement  as 
already  presented  •/  it  is  for  an  effect  in  the  period  when  given 
and  suited  to  that  period.  We  need  not  debate  whether  the : 
all  chastisement  refers  to  that  of  God,  or  of  both  God  and 
earthly  parents.  It  is  the  ideal  of  chastisement  that  the  Apostle 
has  in  mind.  It  is  evidently  his  intention  to  express,  that  chas- 
tisement is  good,  as  he  has  expressed  in  the  foregoing  verse.  This 
notion  is  expressed  by  the  phrase :  chastisement  for  the  present, 
which  denotes  that  chastisement  is  the  exigency  of  the  present 
when  it  is  given,  v  To  say  :  all  chastisement  seems  for  the  present 
not  a  matter  of  joy,  leaves  wholly  unexpressed  whether  it  is  good 
at  all  for  the  present,  while  the  following  clause  would  then 
express  that  all  the  good  is  in  the  after  fruit.  This  leaves  pres- 
ent chastisement,  for  the  present,  an  incomprehensible  mystery. 
'That  the  Author  does  not  so  mean,  appears  from  his  likening  it 
to  the  gymnast's  hard  training  in  exercise  (jeyu/ivaffpj'^oi?).  Those 
who  experience  the  chastisement  of  persecution  and  seduction  to 
apostasy  are  exercised  as  the  gymnast.  For  the  latter,  that  is 
the  severe  discipline  for  the  present  when  in  training.  It  seems 
not  a  matter  of  joy ;  but  it  is  good,  and  thus  he  rejoices  in  it. 
It  is  the  condition  requisite  to  later  triumph.  He  knows  the 
full  import  of  it,  and  it  is  no  mystery,  to  be  solved  only  as  the 
event  shall  show.  In  the  same  way  the  Apostle  presents:  chas- 
tisement for  the  present.  He  would  have  the  readers  take  it,  not 
for  what  it  seems,  but  for  what  it  is.  Afterward,  it  yields  its 
result  to  those  that  have  been  exercised  by  it,  by  which  lie  means 
no  mere  passive  endurance  of  its  evils,  but  an  active  and  willing 
subjection  to  them,  like  the  training  of  the  gymnast.  This  is  a 
new  figure  of  speech,  and  no  recurrence  to  the  image  of  the 


xii.  12,  13.]    PEACEABLE   FRUIT   OF   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  467 

arena  used  vcr.  4N,  The  result  he  expresses  by  :  peaceable  fruit 
of  righteousness.  ThisTholuck^  interprets:  "Fruit  of  righteous- 
ness enjoyed  after  conflict  in  perfect  peace."  The  expression,  we 
think,  hints  at  the  disposition  of  the  readers  to  secure  peace  by 
compliance  with  the  seductions  to  apostasy,  and  avoiding  conflict. 
That  would  be  no  fruit  of  righteousness,  but  the  contrary ;  and 
while  the  present  without  chastisement  might  seem  peace  and  a 
matter  of  joy,  it  must  afterward  be  destruction. 

The  Apostle  has  now  animated  his  readers  by  three  considera- 
tions, to  endure  with  constancy  and  resolute  blood-earnestness, 
the  conflict  with  "  the  sin,"  which,  in  ver.  4,  he  intimated  they 
were  maintaining  with  not  enough  seriousness.  He  has  charac- 
terized what  they  endured  as  chastisement  from  God.  In  this 
light  "  the  first  considerations  is,  that  they  should  recognize  in 
that  God's  parental  love  toward  them ;  the  second,  that  they 
should  consider  the  wholesome  object  of  His  chastisement ;  and 
the  third,  that  (in  view  of  the  second)  what  they  are  called  to 
suffer  ceases  to  be  an  injury."  \, 

Having  so  admirably  presented  the  motives  that  should  ani- 
mate his  readers,  the  Apostle  turns  to  exhortation  founded  on 
them.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  it  is  just  such  exhortation  as,  if 
heeded,  will  secure  a  peace  that  consists  with  righteousness. 

Ver.  12.  Wherefore,  straighten  up  the  relaxed  bands  and  the 
palsied  knees,  13.  and  make  straight  paths  for  your  feet,  in  order 
that  what  is  lame  may  not  be  turned  out  of  the  way,  but  rather  be 
healed. 

It  seems  unlikely  that  the  Author  still  maintains  the  figures 
of  the  race  or  of  the  arena,  used  in  the  foregoing  context.  The 
mention  of  the  lame  is  incompatible  with  that,  as  is  also  the 
direction  :  make  paths.  The  Author  employs  other  figures  here, 
involved  in  the  scripture  language  he  adopts.  That  of  ver.  12, 
from  Isa.  xxxv.  3,  comes  out  of  a  passage  that  represents  a 
march  tlirough  a  wilderness,  and  suits  a  situation  where  a  great 
many,  of  every  degree  of  strength  and  qualification  for  such  a 
march,  move  on  as  a  host  together.  The  context  in  Isa.  xxxv. 
is  consoling  and  cheering ;  but  as  the  Apostle  weaves  the  lan- 

*  See  in  Del.  "  vou  Hof. 


468 


MAKE   STRAIGHT    PATHS.  [xil.  12,  13. 


guage  into  his  discourse,  he  maintains  the  tone  of  severity  of  ver. 
4,  as  modified  by  the  representations  of  vers.  5-11.     He  exhorts 
the  readers  to  set  right  {a^opfKbaare,  by  which  is  meant :  to  bring 
into  the  right  posture  for  the  active  use  proper  to  the  members 
mentioned)  slack  hands  and  palsied  knees.     And,  borrowing  the 
language  of  Prov.  iv.  26,  he  adds  :  make  straight  paths  for  your 
feet.     Some  would  render  ro7?  Ttoaiv  u'lwv  =  "  with  your  feet,    and 
thus  have  the  meaning  :  go  straight  on  with  your  feet.^     And 
this  they  defend  against  the  other  rendering,  by  saying,  that  it 
is  impossible  for  our  Author  to  represent  Christians  as  making 
their  own  way,  where  he  has  declared  that  Christ  has  prepared 
it.     This  is  very  short-sighted  confusion.      The  Author  may 
speak  of  a  way  that  believers  must  go,  without  meaning  that 
which  Christ  prepared.     The  way  of  enduring  conflict  with  evil 
is  such  a  way.      Furthermore,  the  following  clause  denoting 
intention,  would  not  fit  on  to  such  a  meaning  as  the   one  just 
referred  to :  in  order  that  what  is  lame  may  not  be  turned  out  of 
the  way.  Some  would  translate  txrpa-fj  =  "he  put  out  of  joint."  ^ 
"  But  whether  that  meaning  can  be  established  or  not,  it  does 
not  fit  the  subject  rd  xu>U^,  which  does  not  mean  the  lame  mem- 
ber of  the  body,  but,  as  a  neuter  collective  noun,  is  the  designa- 
tion of  the  lame  members  of  the  congregation.     Moreover,  that 
meaning  does  not  fit  the  context;  for,  though  a  lame  person  may 
put  his  foot  out  of  joint  on  a  rugged  way,  here  the  discourse  is 
not   about   that  kind    of  way,  but   about  a   direct   or   crooked 
way."  *   In  this  figurative  language  the  Apostle  exhorts  his  readers, 
speaking  to  them  collectively  as  comprising  various  forms  of 
defective  Christian  life.     Let  them  correct  the  defects  in  them- 
selves.    Let  them  avoid  a  course  that  is  now  to  the  right,  now 
to  the  left,  by  making  a  straight  and  direct  track.     So  let  them 
help  others  (the  lame)  whose  imperfections   must  cause  them 
easily  to  turn  out  of  a  way  that  is  tortuous  and  ever  changing  its 
direction.     Whereas,  on  a  direct  track  they  will  go  safely  and 
even  be  healed,  of  their  imperfection  ;  as  the  lame  (by  which  is 
meant  much  the  same  as  by  the  palsied),  who,  on  a  good  direct 
1  go^  g.  ^_^  L(ui.  2  de  Wette ;  version  of  1881,  margin. 

*  von  Hof. 


xii.  14.]       SEEK   PEACE   AND   THE  SANCTIFICATION.  4G9 

road,  along  which  tliey  may  go  in  regular  and  measured  tread, 
may  even  be  healed  of  the  lameness  that  has  come  from  over-exer- 
tion on  account  of  straying  from  the  way  and  recovering  it  again. 

Von  Hofmanu  remarks,  that  the  Author,  in  using  Isa.  xxxv.  3, 
renders  the  Hebrew  more  accurately  than  the  LXX,,  and  to  this 
he  points  as  another  evidence  that  the  Author  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  original  text. 

Leaving  figurative  speech,  the  Apostle  proceeds  in  proper  dis- 
course : 

Ver.  14.  Follow  after  peace  with  all  men,  and  the  sanctification, 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord. 

What  we  have  already  said  under  ver.  11,  and  as  preface  to 
vers.  12,  13,  seems  to  be  still  more  plainly  intimated  here.  The 
Apostle's  exhortation,  like  the  blame  of  ver,  4,  is  directed  against 
a  disposition  in  his  readers  to  treat  the  present  conflict  with  too 
little  seriousness,  and  to  seek  peace  by  compliance  with  Judaizing 
tendencies.  Without  that  background,  or  something  like  it,  the 
combination  of  directions  here  seems  strange ;  for  the  two  clauses 
have  no  obvious  relation  of  thought  to  one  another.  With  that 
background,  however,  we  can  see  a  great  fitness  in  co-ordinating 
the  directions  :  seek  peace  with  all  men,  and  the  sanctification, 
etc.  By  TrrivTwv  =  all,  is  not  meant  all  the  brethren,  but  all  men, 
meaning  all  with  whom  the  readers  had  relations,  including 
those  from  whom  they  experienced  contradiction.  The  readers 
would  seek  peace,  and  the  Apostle  would  have  them  do  so.  But 
he  would  have  it  consistently  with  something  higher,  viz.,  seek- 
ing to  have  the  sanctification  "  by  means  of  which  we  see  the 
Lord."  He  says :  the  sanctification,  with  the  article,  by  which 
we  should  know  that  it  is  that  sanctification  of  which  the  Apostle 
has  spoken  so  fully,  and  of  which  he  says  :  "  we  are  sanctified  by 
the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  once  for  all."  (x.  10.)  When 
so  sanctified,  we  draw  near  to  God  boldly.  This  that  is  signified 
by  the  definite  article  is  precisely  expressed  by  the  following 
clause  :  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.  By  Lord,  is 
meant  God,  we  suppose,  according  to  what  has  been  ]ircvi()usly 
expressed  as  the  consequence  of  sanctification.*  By  saying  :  with- 
Mv.  16;  vi.  18-20;  x.  19-22. 


470  CEITERION   OF   RIGHTEOUS   PEACE.  [xii.  15. 

out  which  no  man,  etc.,  instead  of  the  affirmative  :  by  which  a 
man  shall  see  the  Lord,  the  Author  gives  a  minatory  as  well  as 
a  monitory  effect  to  what  he  says.  To  those  seeking  peace  as 
the  chief  thing,  it  expresses  how  much  more  important  it  is  to 
seek  after  the  sanctification,  than  to  secure  peace  with  all  men. 
Thus,  the  former  must  yield  to  the  latter.  Thus  our  verse  is  a 
peculiar  and  significant  way  of  saying  what  is  said  Horn.  xii.  18. 
"  If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  in  you  lieth,  be  at  peace  with  all 
men."  Our  expression  points  to  the  criterion  of  the  possible. 
Peace  that  is  consistent  with  seeking  the  sanctification  may  be 
sought.  But  peace  that  is  purchased  by  giving  up  that  way  of 
sanctification,  must  not  be  sought.  Rather  let  there  be  conflict. 
Though  that  be  present  chastisement,  it  will  be  followed  by  a 
righteous  peace.  Thus  the  sentiment  of  our  verse  is  expressed 
in  a  way  that  resembles  what  God  said  by  Isaiah  :  ^  "  I  cannot 
stand  sacrilege  and  solemn  assembly,"  where  the  "  and "  has 
special  emphasis.  As  in  the  latter  it  is  expressed  what  must  not 
be  combined,  so  in  our  verse  it  is  expressed  what  must  be  com- 
bined, meaning,  of  course,  in  that  way  that  is  compatible.  AVith 
this  interpretation,  we  observe  how  tenaciously  the  Apostle  holds 
to  his  subject,  and  how  far  he  is  from  digressing,  even  for  a 
moment,  in  general  exhortation. 

In  harmony  with  the  interpretation  of  ver.  14  just  given,  the 
Apostle  proceeds,  with  a  participial  construction,  to  give  further 
directions,  which  directions  thus  appear  as  the  means  by  which 
effect  must  be  ffiven  to  the  admonition  of  ver.  14.  The  directions 
themselves  are  obviously  fitted  for  this. 

Ver.  15.  Taking  care  lest  there  be  any  one  withdrawing  from 
the  grace  of  God,  lest  any  root  of  bitterness  springing  up  trouble 
you,  and  thereby  many  be  defiled. 

It  is  thus  that  seeking  after  peace  with  others  and  the  sancti- 
fication that  has  access  to  God  may  be  combined  The  second  is 
the  paramount  concern,  and,  accordingly,  the  present  direction 
demands  that  special  care  be  had  that  no  one  surrenders  it.  For : 
the  grace  of  God  ^  names  "the  sanctification  that  shall  see  the 
Lord,"  from  another  side,  that  is,  God's  side.     "  The  motto  or 

1  Isa.  i.  13.  ^  Comp.  ii.  9-11. 


xii.  15.]  THE    GRACE    OF    GOD.  471 

signature  of  the  uew  era  in  Christ,  was :  '  the  grace  of  God,' 
grace  without  works  of  the  law."^  "As  it  is  not  a  situation^ 
tliat  is  designated  hero,  but  conduct,  btrTept'.v  d-d  r?^?  ^dftizoi;  rou 
^€ou  means:  to  withdraw  oneself  from  the  grace  of  God,  as  Eccles. 
vii.  34,  uarepsiv  dzu  T&v  x}.ac6>Twv  means:  'remove  not  thyself 
from  those  that  weep.'  "^  The  thought  thus  expressed  is  some- 
thing too  distinct  from  that  of  the  following  clause  about  the  root 
of  bitterness,  for  them  to  be  taken  as  appositional  and  havdng 
the  common  predicate  ivo^/j.*  The  present  is  a  distinct  and  par- 
ticular matter  for  care,  and  touches  the  same  case  as  x.  25,  that 
warns  the  readers  against  forsaking  their  meetings,  and  x.  35, 
that  exhorts  them  not  to  cast  away  their  confidence  that  has  such 
great  reward. 

They  are  to  take  care  also  that  none  become  defiled.  This  is 
the  special  thing  to  be  prevented.  The  danger  of  it  comes  from 
something  that  is  emblematically  described  as  a  root  of  bitterness 
springing  up,  which  is  of  such  noxious  effect  that  it  wiU  defile 
many,  if  care  be  not  taken. 

In  this  and  vers.  16,  17  the  Apostle  expresses  his  thoughts 
under  three  different  figures,  the  root  of  bitterness,  the  fornicator, 
the  profixne  person,  with  Esau  as  example  of  the  last.  These 
forms  of  expression  could  only  be  understood  by  Jews,  or  persons 
versed  in  the  Old  Testament  scriptures.  This  is  not  mere  mat- 
ter of  style.  Nor  is  it  merely  because  the  Apostle  finds  therein 
suitable  figurative  expressions  or  emblems  of  the  things  in  ques- 
tion. It  is  because,  in  revelation  and  the  history  of  God's  peo- 
ple, these  names  had  become  the  symbols  of  the  things  against 
which  he  would  warn  his  readers.  He  treats  his  readers  as  the 
same  people  of  God  as  those  of  old.^  These  symbols  are  vitally 
connected  with  their  own  history,  as  madness  or  the  idiosyncra- 
sies of  obstinacy  or  folly  with  the  histories  of  some  families.  No 
other  manner  of  expression  could  more  clearly  designate  the 
thing,  and  stamp  its  character,  and  intimate  its  consequences,  all 
in  brief  phrase,  than  these  the  Apostle  uses  to  his  readers.  Tliey 
have  that  pregnant  and  portentous  significance  that  Patrick  Henry 

'  Del.  ^  iv.  1.  3  Y,,j,  Jicif.,  comp.  Del. 

*  Against  Ebrard,  Del.,  AKord,  Liin.  *  i.  1,  2  ;  iii.  7 — iv.  9. 


472  A   ROOT   OF   BITTERNESS.  [xii.  16. 

intended,  when  he  said  :  "  Csesar  had  his  Brutus ;  Charles  I.,  his 
Cromwell,  and  George  the  third — may  profit  by  their  example :" 
or  that  is  intended  when  it  is  said  of  an  Emperor  of  Germany, 
or  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Empire :  "  He  must  go  to  Ca- 
nosse." 

In  our  verse  the  Apostle  borrows  his  expression  from  Deut. 
xxix.  18  :  "  Lest  there  should  be  among  you  a  root  that  beareth 
gall  (margin  :  '  a  poisonous  herb ')  and  wormwood."  In  doing 
so,  he  means  to  bring  in  with  the  expression :  root  of  bitterness, 
all  the  solemn  warning  of  the  original  context,  and  apply  it  to 
the  situation  of  the  readers.  In  the  ancient  case,  it  was  yielding 
to  the  seductions  to  idolatry  as  practised  by  the  surrounding 
heathen.  In  the  New  Testament  case  of  the  readers,  it  was 
yielding  to  the  seductions  to  Judaize,  compliance  with  which 
would  be  withdrawing  from  the  grace  of  God.  Such  a  root  he 
intimates  is  springing  up  {ifbnoaa^  present  participle),  which,  if 
let  alone,  will  give  trouble  as  poison  troubles,  and  defile  many  as 
those  are  defiled  who  have  incurred  a  curse.^  By  defile  is  ex- 
pressed the  strongest  antithesis  to  "  the  sauctification "  of  the 
foregoing  verse.  It  is  likely  that  the  Apostle  means  by  this 
root  of  bitterness  a  man,^  or  persons,  and  not  some  evil  doctrine 
or  practice.  For  in  Deut.  xxix.  18  the  reference  is  to  a  "man, 
or  woman,  or  family,  or  tribe,"  and  in  1  Mace.  i.  10  the  meta- 
phor is  used  in  the  same  personal  way  :  "  And  there  came  out  of 
them  a  wicked  root,  Autiochus."  We  must  interpret  in  the  same 
way  the  expressions  that  follow,  viz.,  "  fornicator,"  or  "  profane," 
of  a  person  or  persons. 

It  seems  worth  while,  before  passing  from  ver.  15  6.  to  remark, 
that  the  expression  :  "  lest  any  root  of  bitterness  springing  up 
trouble  you,"  is  most  commonly  used  in  Christian  discourse  and 
prayer  to  mean  something  very  d  liferent  from  what  we  see  the 
Author  means  by  it.  It  is  used  to  express  the  cause  of  trouble, 
i.  e.,  of  strife  in  churches  and  communities.  As  a  phrase,  it  is 
so  wedded  to  the  notion  of  rivalries  and  dissentions  and  quarrels,  as 
to  make  readers  quite  mistake  the  force  of  it  in  the  present  verse. 

Ver.  16  a.     Lest  [there  be]  any  fornicator.     This,  of  course,  is 

» So  de  Wette,  Liin.  » Ck)mp,  Deut.  xxix.  19,  27. 


xii,  16.]  A   FORNICATOR.  473 

said  using  fornicator  iu  its  emblematic  sense.'  The  appearance 
of  the  word  between  two  other  expressions  of  emblematic  mean- 
ing, makes  it  impossible  to  understand  it  otherwise,  even  though 
the  Author  uses  the  same  word  xiii.  4  in  its  literal  sense.^  The 
Apostle  refers  to  Num.  xxv.  1-18,  as  he  does  in  1  Cor.  x.  8,  which 
may  be  taken  as  the  amplification  of  the  present  expression : 
"  Neither  let  us  commit  fornication,  as  some  of  them  committed, 
and  fell  in  one  day  three  and  twenty  thousand,"  It  was  that 
transgression  of  Israel  with  Midian  that  forever  made  fornication 
the  symbol  of  breaking  away  from  God  and  his  covenant  to  wor- 
shijj  idols  and  have  part  with  idolators.  The  sin  grew  out  of 
the  seduction  of  idolatrous  company,  rather  than  the  love  of  idols 
themselves.  The  Apostle  means  that  withdrawing  from  the 
grace  of  God  in  Christ  to  seek  sanctity  in  legal  ordinances 
through  regard  for  those  that  remained  Jews  is,  for  Jewish 
Christians,  a  New  Testament  form  of  the  same  sin.  In  the 
strikingly  related  passage  1  Cor.  x.  1-14,  addressed  to  Gentiles,  it 
is  idolatry  proper.  In  the  present  application  the  Apostle  fol- 
lows the  precedent  of  Jesus  Himself,  who  called  the  Jews  that  did 
not  believe  on  him  :  "  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation."  ^ 
The  fornicator  against  whom  the  present  warning  is  uttered 
would  be  one  that  would  go  over  to  those  enemies  of  Christ. 
Taking  this  danger,  i.  e.,  such  a  person,  in  that  considerate  spirit 
commended  x.  24,  25,  in  the  incipiency  of  such  a  character, 
might  prevent  the  mischief.  Dealing  with  it  in  the  end  would 
require  the  zeal  of  a  Phineas. 

Ver.  16  b.  Or  profane  person,  as  Esau,  who  for  one  mess  of 
food  sold  his  own  birthright. 

The  disjunctive  yj  —  or,  separates  "fornicator"  and  profane 
person,  so  that  the  latter  is  not  to  be  taken  as  only  another  des- 
ignation for  the  former.  The  word  /9^/35j/l«9  =  profane,  is  used  of 
places  and  of  persons.  Spoken  of  places,  it  means  what  may  be 
walked  over  by  any  one,  and  is  o])posed  to  "  sacred."  Spoken 
of  persons,  it  means  one  who  invades  what  is  sacred  with  the 
same  disregard  that  he  would  show  for  what  is  common,  whether 

^  So  Ebrard,  etc.  '^  Against  Liin.,  Del.,  von  Hof.,  Angus. 

^Mark  viii.  38;  comp.  Matt.  xii.  39;  xvi.  4. 


474  A   PROFANE   PEESON.  [xil.  17. 

through  ignorance  or  contempt.  Such  persons  profane  every- 
thing holy.  But  the  Apostle  himself  defines  the  meaning  with 
which  he  uses  the  word  by  adducing  an  example  of  the  kind  of 
person.  It  is  Esau.^  His  story  is  familiar.  In  the  special 
transaction  referred  to,  he  displayed  a  frivolous  character,  judged 
by  the  religious  standard  of  the  family  of  Abraham,  and  gave 
the  type  of  character  for  the  people  of  God  of  all  time.  With 
profane  levity  Esau  treated  the  birthright  that  was  naturally  his, 
as  of  less  value  than  the  present  benefit  of  a  mess  of  food  for  his 
famished  condition.  To  a  reader  that,  with  sustained  attention, 
keeps  in  view  the  situation  to  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  the 
analogy  of  Esau's  frivolity  will  be  obvious.  Whoever  treated 
the  conflict  with  "  the  sin "  in  the  trifling  manner  rebuked  in 
ver.  4,  might  treat  the  vital  matter  of  "  the  promise  "  and  "  the 
sanctification  that  shall  see  the  Lord  "  in  the  same  way.  It  might 
be  feared  that  he  was  ready  to  have  peace  and  ease  at  the  cost  of 
surrendering  his  hold  on  "  the  grace  of  God,"  thus  at  the  cost  of  the 
only  "  sanctification  that  shall  see  the  Lord."  Such  levity  comes 
of  ignorance  of  the  vital  truths  that  this  epistle  aims  to  establish, 
and  is  evidence  of  the  want  of  faith  as  the  latter  is  defined  xi.  1. 
Such  is  the  character  that  the  Scripture  stamps  as  profane.  But 
what  will  come  of  peace  secured  at  the  cost  of  such  compliances 
and  surrender,  the  Apostle  intimates  by  an  impressive  reminder 
of  the  consequences  of  Esau's  profanity. 

Ver.  17.  For  ye  know  that  even  when  he  afterward  desired 
to  inherit  the  blessing,  he  was  rejected  (for  he  found  no  place  for 
repentance)  although  he  sought  it  diligently  with  tears. 

In  I'ffTs  =  ye  know,  it  is  the  indicative  that  the  Author  uses. 
And  the  facts  he  recites  are  as  well  known  to  us  as  they  were  to 
the  original  readers.  As  it  is  to  something  known  and  plain 
that  he  refers,  so  we  ought  to  find  no  meaning  in  what  he  says 
that  is  not  perfectly  plain.  This  consideration  should  obviate 
the  supposition  that  the  repentance  spoken  of  is  Isaac's,  as  if 
Esau  could  not  move  him  to  change  his  mind.  Nothing  in  the 
original  narrative  gives  countenance  to  such  a  notion.  Isaac 
indeed  would  not  change ;  but  the  inflexibility  in  him  is  due  to 

^  See  Gen.  xxv.  31  sqq. 


xii.  17.]  ESAU   THE   TYPE   OF   PROFANITY.  475 

his  conviction  that  the  will  of  God  had  become  known  in  what 
had  happened.  The  active  subject  of:  was  rejected,  must  be 
understood  to  be  God,  not  Isaac.  But  it  is  the  fact,  without  ex- 
press thought  of  the  agent,  that  is  appealed  to.  The  interpreta- 
tion that  refers  the  repentance  to  Isaac  is  occasioned  by  the  syntax 
of  our  verse,  that  makes  the  ahTr,\>,  in :  lie  sought  it  diligently,  refer 
most  easily  to  iizrwjinaq}  From  that  results  the  statement :  he 
sought  repentance  diligently  and  could  find  no  place  for  it.  Now 
it  seems  unevangelical  to  speak  of  one  seeking  repentance,  i.  e., 
to  repent,  in  vain  ;  hence  it  is  inferred,  that  the  meaning  must  be 
repentance  in  Isaac.  Some,  however,  accept  the  construction  as 
stating  that  Esau  could  not  repent,  and  find  here  a  reiteration  of 
what  is  supposed  to  be  said  vi.  6,  ix.  26  sqq.  of  impossible 
repentance.^     There  is  no  real  ground  for  these  interpretations. 

"As  at  viii.  7,  r6-uv  Ttvu<s  ^rj-stv  is:  'to  seek  room  for  some- 
thing,' and  Acts  xxv.  16  W-rov  nvd'}  ^a;j.l3dv£iv  is :  'to  receive 
room  for  something,'  meaning  to  seek  and  get  room  for  what  should 
take  place,  so  here  totzov  r:vo9  eupitjxec^  means  '  to  find  room  for 
something,'  that  it  may  take  place.  Then,  however,  it  cannot  be, 
as  in  the  phrase  zo-ov  dcSovat  rcA,^  that  what  one  seeks,  or  receives, 
or  finds  room  for,  is  something  pertaining  to  another  that  one 
would  see  take  place.  And,  again,  when  one  seeks,  or  finds  room 
for  something,  he  must  either  purpose  or  have  with  him  as  his 
own  what  he  would  have  take  place.  Accordingly  '  repentance ' 
cannot  be  a  change  of  mind  in  Isaac  that  Esau  would  etfect."* 
For  one  cannot  seek,  or  find  room  for  something  belonging  to 
another  that  on  the  part  of  that  other  does  not  even  exist,  but  must 
first  be  brought  about  ...  In  Esau  himself  a  change  of  mind 
had  taken  place,  in  that  he  now  desired  what  he  had  previously 
treated  so  lightly.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  meant,  he  found  no 
room  for  a  change  of  mind,  M^hich  change,  therefore,  did  not  take 
place  ;  ^  and  this  is  not  what  is  said.     It  is  true  that  it  is  said, 

'  See  in  de  Wette. 

^  So  de  Wette ;  comp.  Bengel,  who  from  only  the  clause :  "  he  found  no  place 
for  repentance,"  interprets :  "  it  might  no  more  be  with  Esau.  Natura  rei 
recusabat."  "  Rom.  xii.  19,  Wisd.  xii.  10. 

*  Against  Baumgarten,  Storr,  Boehme,  Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Liinemann,  Kurtz, 
etc.,  [Stuart,  Lindsay,  Alford.]  *  Against  de  ^Vette,  Ebrard. 


476  NO    ROOM    FOR    REPENTANCE.  [xii.  17. 

'  Wisd.  of  Sol.  xii.  lOj  Tonoit  diddvai  fieravocag  =  to  give  One  roora 
for  a  change  of  mind  that  does  not  yet  exist,  but  is  only  possible. 
But  there,  the  one  that  gives  room  is  another,  and  not  the  per- 
son that  is  to  change  his  mind.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  the 
one  that  seeks  room  is  the  same  that  has  the  change  of  mind. 
For  this  we  are  rather  to  compare  that  tottov  Xa/j.l3d>eiv  a-ohiyia^ 
Acts  xxv%  16.  As  there  Paul  wishes  to  receive  room  for  a  defence 
that  he  has  ready,  so  that  it  only  needs  to  take  place,  just  so  Esau 
found  here  no  room  where  a  change  of  mind  took  place,  since, 
though  it  was  in  him,  it  could  not  take  eifect.  Thus  the  Apostle 
does  not  at  all  leave  unexpressed  whither  Esau  repented,^  but 
affirms  it  expressly,  only  it  was  too  late  to  find  room  for  it,  after 
the  blessing  he  now  craved  had  been  given  away,  and  was  lost 
for  him.  If  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  clause  :  lie  found  no  room 
for  repentance,  then  it  is  a  parenthesis  that  serves  to  explain  the  : 
was  rejected  in  a  way  that  expressly  emphasizes  that  there  was 
not  wanting  on  Esau's  part  a  change  of  mind.  As,  then,  the  : 
even  though  lie  sought  it  with  tears,  connects  back  over  the  paren- 
thesis with  :  was  rejected,  the  it  (aoryj'y)  of  course  refers  to  :  the 

blessing  (ji-jv  ebXoyia'J).      It  has  been  objected  that  xainsp  W^rirvjaa^ 

and  (lo^r  eupsv  belong  so  necessarily  together  that  every  reason  for 
another  construction  must  yield  to  that.^  But  it  has  not  been 
considered  that  this  could  only  be  maintained  if  ix!^rjTyj<Ta?  and 
ov^  eopev  had  the  same  object ;  which,  however,  is  not  the  case, 
seeing  it  reads  ix!^i^TTj(Ta?  adrijv,  and  not  auroiJ.  And  so  Esau 
sought  with  tears  (not  repentance,  neither  his  own  nor  his 
father's),  but  the  blessing  that  he  had  lost."  ^ 

This  extended  analysis  of  the  language  of  our  verse,  made 
necessary  by  the  confusion  of  many  in  regard  to  it,  must  not 
divert  our  minds  from  the  plain  intention  of  the  Apostle  in  writing 
it.  He  would  show  impressively  the  consequence  of  frivolous 
profanity  that  could  make  little  account  of  the  "  sanctifica- 
tion  that  shall  see  the  Lord,"  of  which  Esau  is  the  scriptural 
symbol.  It  may  seem  an  inconsiderable  matter  to  his  readers. 
But  the  Apostle  says  :  "  take  care  lest  there  be  a  profane  person." 

^  As  Eiehra,  p.  771. 

2  So  Kurtz  [Alford.]  ^  von  Hof. 


xii.  17.]  RESUME  OF  XII.  14-17.  477 

In  what  befell  Esau  see  the  consequence  of  such  profanity.  It 
may  forfeit  the  promise  as  well  as  grosser  sin,  like  idolatry. 

In  vers.  14-17  we  find  a  imity  of  idea  rather  than  a  progress 
of  thought.  AVe  have  not  an  admonition,  comprising  a  series  of 
congruous  notions  of  peace,  holiness,  shunning  bitter  strife,  licen- 
tiousness, careless  unconcern  about  sacred  things.  We  have  one 
double  admonition,  and  then  directions  in  detail,  by  heeding 
which  latter  the  admonition  will  be  realized.  The  admonition 
is  prompted  by  a  situation  perilous  with  seduction  to  a  fatal  sin, 
and  by  conduct  that  shows  that  the  readers  treat  the  peril  and 
the  consequent  conflict  with  too  little  seriousness  (ver.  4).  There 
is  a  disposition  to  secure  peace  at  the  cost  of  giving  up  "  the  pro- 
fession of  the  hope,"  instead  of  "  holding  fast  to  it  to  the  end," 
at  the  cost  of  patience  and  endurance.  The  admonition  is : 
"seek  peace  with  all  and  the  sanctification  that  shall  see  the 
Lord."  As  the  way  to  do  this,  the  Apostle  adds  the  directions, 
to  talce  care  on  the  side  of  the  peril  "  lest  any  one  withdraw  from 
the  grace  of  God."  He  points  out  three  'particulars,  the  root  of 
bitterness,  the  fornicator,  the  profane  person,  in  each  of  which 
is  to  be  seen  the  realization  of  this  withdrawing  from  the  grace 
of  God. 

It  may  seem  to  some  that  it  is  imputing  a  poverty  of  thought  to 
the  Author  to  refer  all  these  descriptions  to  the  one  notion  of 
apostasy  from  Christ  by  Judaizing,  which  might  be  supposed  to 
have  sufficient  mention  in  :  "  lest  any  withdraw  from  the  grace 
of  God."  But,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  richness  of  thought,  if  the 
accumulation  of  expression  is  really  amplification,  and  not  mere 
reiteration.  And  such  is  actually  the  case.  For  "  the  sin  "  to 
be  guarded  against  is  detected  in  its  most  characteristic  manifes- 
tations. They  are  three,  and  they  are  appropriately  labeled, 
(a)  In  "the  poisonful  root"  is  designated  the  determined  and 
defiant  apostate  described  Deut.  xxix.  18,  19,  as  one  who,  when 
he  hears  the  words  that  curse  him,  "  blesses  himself  in  his  heart, 
saying,  I  shall  have  peace,  though  I  walk  in  the  stubbornness  of 
mine  heart."  (6)  In  the  "  fornicator  "  is  designated  the  sort  of 
person  who,  like  Israel  with  Midian,  is  seduced  to  acts  of  apos- 
tasy, not  by  inclination  to  the  thing  itself,  but  by  over-willing- 


478  AN   IMPRESSIVE   ORDER    OF   THOUGHT.  [xii.  17. 

ness  to  be  friendly  with  those  who  are  adversaries  to  the  truth, 
(c)  In  "the  profane  person"  is  designated  the  light  and  frivolous 
character  in  respect  to  the  vital  things  of  saving  religion,  who 
easily  surrenders  the  very  palladium  of  religion  without  knowing 
what  he  has  done,  on  the  mere  urgency  of  a  present  want.  Each 
of  these  is  designated  by  an  appropriate  Old  Testament  symbol, 
that  is  more  expressive  than  any  other  descriptive  terms  could  be, 
as  has  been  shown  above  under  ver.  15.  Moreover,  we  notice 
that  the  Author  adduces  his  examples  in  a  descending  scale,  from 
the  worst  to  what  might  be  regarded  as  the  least  dangerous  form 
of  the  evil  to  be  guarded  against.  This  is  just  the  rhetorical 
order  that  is  demanded.  It  pursues  "  the  sin  "  to  its  incipiency, 
and  detects  it  in  the  germ.  It  says  in  effect,  and  gives  example  of 
the  thing  in  saying  it:  "look  carefully  to  it"  that  there  be  no 
bold  apostate,  and  not  even  that  profane  levity  that  heedlessly 
involves  itself  in  as  certain  loss  as  does  the  wilful  apostate. 

Here,  then,  is  not  only  a  tenacious  adherence  to  the  subject  in 
hand,  but  a  richness  of  amplification,  joined  to  comprehensive 
and  exact  analysis  and  classification,  that  is  creditable  to  the 
most  accomplished  authorship. 

The  view  now  presented  of  the  unity  of  thought  in  verses  14- 
17  makes  it  easy  to  recognize  the  logical  connection  of  ver.  18 
sqq.,  denoted  by  the  For  that  introduces  the  matter  there  stated. 
It  is  commonly  understood  that  For,  ver.  18,  connects  with  ver. 
14.  When,  however,  verses  1 5-1 7  are  regarded  as  expressing  addi- 
tional admonitions  of  a  general  character,  the  reference  seems 
rather  remote.  But  with  the  foregoing  explanation  in  mind,  the 
connection  is  close  and  the  logic  cogent.  Seeking  peace  with 
all  men,  and  the  sanctification  that  shall  see  the  Lord,  by  using 
special  care  that  no  one  shall  withdraw  from  the  grace  of  God, 
has  its  ground  and  reason  in  just  the  truth  which  the  Apostle 
proceeds  to  state  in  such  grand  expression ;  which,  in  brief,  is 
this,  that  the  readers  in  coming  to  Christ  and  believing  on  Him, 
come  to  a  situation  that  has  none  of  those  terrors  about  it  that 
characterized  the  giving  of  the  law,  but  encourages  believers  to 
draw  near  to  God,  and  hear  God  Himself  speak,  without  the 
mediation  of  Moses. 


xil.  18,  19  «.]  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM.  479 

Ver.  18.  For  ye  have  not  come  to  palpable  and  kindled  fire  and 
blackness  and  darkness  and  tempest  19  a.  and  sound  of  trumpet  and 
voice  of  words. 

As  a  question  of  the  text,  nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that 
op£c  =  "  mount "  ought  not  to  be  inserted  here.^  Neither  is  it  to 
be  supplied  in  thought  from  ver.  22  as  "  before  the  writer's  mind 
from  the  first." ^  Reading  or  understanding  "the  mount,"  pro- 
ceeds from  a  misconception  of  the  Apostle's  representation.^  It 
is  not  his  purpose  to  say  that  the  readers  have  not  come  to 
Mount  Sinai,  but  liave  come  to  something  else.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  i.  <?.,  constructively  and  virtually,  they  had  come  to  Sinai ; 
for  the  ancient  situation  of  that  coming  remained  till  Christ 
came,  and  continued  to  be  tlie  situation  of  every  Jew  till  he  came 
to  Christ.*  It  is  the  purpose  of  the  Apostle  to  say  to  his  Chris- 
tian readers  where  they  are  come  by  believing.  It  w  that  where,  or 
situation  he  describes ;  and  he  does  tliis  in  the  very  common  way 
of  saying  what  it  is  not,  and  then  wliat  it  is.  When  one  uses 
that  method,  what  is  denied  of  the  subject,  is  not  any  of  the 
infinite  number  of  things  that  it  is  not,  but  that  which  it  may  be 
mistaken  to  be,  especially  that  erroneous  notion  that  makes  the 
necessity  for  affirming  the  true  one.  Such  is  the  method  of  the 
Apostle  in  the  passage  before  us.  Slight  as  the  difference  may 
seem,  w^hen  one  reads  as  if  he  said  :  "  ye  are  not  come  to  the 
mount  that  is  palpable,"  it  yet  involves  the  apparent  discrepan- 
cies that  have  been  charged  on  this  passage.  The  application  of 
the  present  description  is  ver.  25  :  "  see  that  ye  refuse  not  Him 
that  speaketh."  From  this  it  appears  that  the  description  is 
intended  to  make  plain  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
speaking  occurs.  In  saying,  then,  ye  have  not  come,  ye  have  come 
(ver.  22),  the  meaning  is,  the  readers  have  come  to  hear  God 
speak.  That  is  the  situation  tliat  is  now  described  negatively 
and  affirmatively.  The  words  before  us  are  part  of  the  negative 
description.  They  deny  concerning  this  situation  that  it  has 
such   traits   of  terror  as   appeared  when  the  law  was  given. 

*  As  in  the  Reoep.  and  by  Del.,  Liin.,  Lindsay. 

^  Against  Alford,  etc.,  and  version  of  1881. 

'See  more  under  ver.  22.  *  Comp.  Gal.  iv.  25  sqq. 


480  ALLEGED   DISCEEPANCY.  [xii.  18,  19  a. 

Accordingly,  all  the  substantives  are  appropriately  given  without 
the  article;  and  so  they  appear  in  the  above  translation.  This 
permits  the  Apostle  to  select  such  expressions  as  seem  to  him 
most  suitable,  either  from  those  used  in  the  LXX.  rendering  of 
the  original  accounts,  or  from  his  own  vocabulary.  By  this  cor- 
rect conception  of  the  Author's  thought,  it  is  at  once  relieved  of 
the  appearance  of  any  confusion  about  the  original  transactions 
from  which  he  draws  his  descriptive  traits.  He  may  at  his  dis- 
cretion choose  and  combine  traits,  with  artistic  judgment,  as 
Leonardo  Da  Vinci  does  in  his  Last  Supper.  In  this  way  the 
Author  brings  in  the  words  of  Moses  (ver.  21)  with  perfect 
propriety,  and  without  any  discrepancy,  as  we  shall  notice  in  its 
proper  place.  All  is  very  diiferent  when  one  reads  or  supplies  : 
"the  mount."  For  then  the  Author  is  supposed  to  be  describing 
the  scene  at  Mt.  Sinai ;  and  when  he  mentions  particular  traits 
that  are  identified  in  the  original  account  as  attending  a  special 
event,  that  is  supposed  to  be  the  scene  he  is  describing.  If,  then, 
as  in  ver.  21,  he  mentions  something  of  which  the  original 
account  says  nothing,  but  which  belongs  to  a  totally  different 
event,  immediately  all  the  perplexities  attending  supposed  dis- 
crepancies arise.  Viewing  the  Author's  thought  in  the  M^ay 
presented  above,  it  would  appear  consistent,  if  he  had  seen  proper 
to  add  a  trait  from  the  transactions  at  Kadesh  Barnea  in  illus- 
tration of  what  the  Christian  situation  is  not.  For  instance,  God 
spoke  then  with  such  demonstration  that  the  Israelites  cried : 
"  Behold  we  die,  we  perish,  we  all  perish.  V/hosoever  cometh 
anything  near  unto  the  tabernacle  of  the  I-/ord  shall  die ;  shall  we 
be  consumed  with  dying  ?  "  and  that  was  made  the  occasion  of 
instituting  the  Aaronic  priesthood.  (Num.  xvii.  12,  13 ;  xviii. 
1-7).  It  would  contribute  to  the  impression  of  our  verses  if  a  trait 
were  added  that  would  call  up  that  scene ;  say  such  a  phrase  as : 
"  and  to  men  dying  by  scores."  We  only  give  this  in  order  to 
make  plain  the  method  or  rhetoric  of  the  Author  by  extending  it. 
It  needs,  indeed,  no  extension  in  expression,  but  is  perfect  as  it  is. 
Having  corrected  the  common  conception  of  the  description 
before  us,  we  are  relieved  of  the  need  of  particular  explanation  of 
the  terms  of  our  verse,  such  as  commentators  usually  make.    For 


xii.  19  6,  20.]  WHERE  GOD  SPEAKS   NOW.  481 

these  exjjlanations  are  mostly  devoted  to  noting  the  correspon- 
dence of  the  terms  used  here  to  the  original  account  of  the  trans- 
actions attending  the  giving  of  the  law.  (Exod.  xix.  10—25 ;  Deut. 
iv.  11-13;  V.  22-31;  ix.  15,  19;  xviii.  16).  Tlieii*  general 
correspondence  is  obvious  of  itself.  The  aim  in  mentioning  tJie 
traits  is  equally  obvious.  They  portray  a  situation  of  terror,  which 
would  make  the  hearing  of  what  God  commanded  dreadful  and 
insupportable,  and  would  make  the  hearers  deprecate  hearing 
any  more  in  the  same  way. 

In  regard  to  construction,  we  may  remark  ^  on  connecting  both 
i}'riXaw(U!j.i'^u}  and  xsxau//.i-yuj  with  -ope,  that,  as  regards  the  former, 
which  is  much  debated,  it  fits  to  the  Tcupi  quite  as  well  as  it  would 
to  ofjst.  If  in  the  latter  case  it  would  describe  the  mountain  as 
something  apprehended  by  the  senses,  so  it  may  be  said  in  the 
same  sense  of  the  fire.  And  <prjka(f(orj.£vov  Tzop,  as  a  phrase,  resem- 
bles iXTzig  [iXz-uii.i'^ri  (Rom.  viii.  24).  It  seems  likely,  moreover, 
that  the  notion  :  "  cognizable  by  the  senses,"  denoted  by  ^'r^hnp. 
is  meant  to  characterize  all  the  following  descriptive  terms  of  the 
negative  part  of  our  passage,  in  antithesis  to  the  affirmative  part 
where,  such  a  notion  being  then  unexpressed,  it  is  meant  that 
Zion,  and  all  comprehended  with  it,  is  a  "  where  "  that  is  not 
cognizable  by  the  senses.  In  the  latter  may  be  included  the 
"consuming  fire"  that  God  is  said  to  be^  (ver.  28). 

In  this  description  the  Author  has  mentioned  what  appeals  to 
the  eye  (re)  f  a^ra"«//£voi/)  viz.,  fire,  darkness,  tempest,  and  to  the 
ear,  viz.,  sound  and  voice.  To  enhance  and  give  precision  to  the 
conception  of  what  he  affirms  to  be  no  part  of  the  Christian  situa- 
tion, he  refers  to  their  effect  in  those  original  transactions  from 
which  he  draws  his  descriptive  traits.  In  his  usual  manner  he 
takes  the  last  mentioned  first,  and  illustrates  the  voice  and  then 
the  appearance. 

Ver.  19  6.  Which  [voice]  they  that  heard  entreated  that  no 
•word  more  should  be  spoken  unto  them.    Or 

The  hearers  of  which  refused  a  word  more  to  be  uttered  to  them ; 
20.  for  they  could  not  bear  that  which  was  enjoined:  If  even  a 
beast  touch  the  mountain  it  shall  be  stoned. 

*  Reproducing  substantially  von  Ilof.  *  So  von  Hof. 

81 


482  NO   TERRIFYING   DISPLAY  [xii.  19  6,  20. 

The  alternative  translation^  of  ver.  19  h.,  that  we  have  added 
to  that  of  the  Revision  of  1881,  is  more  literal,  but  not  better 
English.  The  antithesis  expressed  in  ver.  25  requires  the  word 
TzapruTfiffdiievnt  to  be  Understood  there  in  the  sense  of:  "to  refuse, 
decline,"  which  is  quite  as  usual  a  sense  as :  "  to  entreat."  What 
it  means  there,  napr^rrjaavru  means  here ;  for  the  present  represen- 
tation is  the  premise  of  that  in  ver.  25.  The  ^9  =  which,  refers 
to  the  foregoing  (po\'rj  —  voice.  The  present  clause  must  not  be 
taken  as  an  indication  that  in  the  foregoing  words  the  Apostle  has 
been  describing  what  occurred  at  Sinai  at  the  particular  time  now 
referred  to.  As  we  have  explained  above,  the  Apostle  denies  of 
the  Christian  situation,  that  it  is  attended  by  a  "  voice  of  words." 
He  means,  however,  that  voice  that  was  heard  at  Sinai,  It  was 
heard  then,  and  witli  what  eifect,  he  states  parenthetically  in  his- 
torical expression  (axouo-avrc?).  That  voice  the  readers  do  not 
hear  now  where  they  are  come.  When  it  was  heard,  the  hearers 
declined  to  have  any  additional  word  uttered  to  them  (-pofxre-d'T^vat. 
aoToi^).  The  sequel  (ver.  25)  shows  that  this  trait  is  not  adduced 
as  any  other  might  be  that  would  illustrate  the  people's  terror. 
It  is  selected  because  it  expresses  what  the  people  did,  and  with  a 
view  to  the  ulterior  purpose  of  the  Author  (ver.  25).  The 
refusal  to  hear  more  was  not  treated  by  God  as  a  reprehensible 
thing  in  the  Israelities.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  approved  by 
God,  and  He  willingly  complied  with  the  request  to  let  Moses 
be  the  medium  of  communicating  His  word  to  the  people.  Nor 
does  the  Apostle  in  his  reference  to  the  transaction  mean  to  place 
it  in  any  other  light.  Moreover,  not  only  was  the  voice  terrible 
in  its  impression  on  the  senses,  but  also  for  the  nature  of  what  it 
expressed.  This  insupportable  nature  of  the  things  commanded 
is  illustrated  by  what  is  cited  in  ver.  20  :  They  could  not  endure 
.  .  .  stoned.  This  is  obviously  well  chosen.  For  if  dumb, 
irrational  beasts  were  so  treated,  the  terrible  severity  of  the 
manifestation  to  rational  men  was  a  fortiori  frightful  and  forbid- 
ding in  the  highest  degree. 

The  visible  things  of  terror  also,  that  the  Apostle  denies  of 
the  Christian  situation,  were  once  actually  seen,  and  felt  to  be 

*  Comp.  de  Wette,  Liin. 


xii.  21.]  AS    WHEN    THE    LAW    WAS    GIVEN.  483 

insupportable.  As  the  most  impressive  illustration  of  this,  he 
appeals  to  the  effect  of  them  on  JNIoses.  It  is  in  Deut.  ix.  19 
that  we  have  Moses'  own  account  of  the  sensation  with  whicii  he 
encountered  the  terrors  on  Sinai.  It  was  when,  after  the  people 
had  sinned  with  the  golden  calf,  he  was  admitted  to  God's  pres- 
ence as  on  the  first  occasion  (Ex.  xxiv.),  when  he  was  there  forty- 
days  and  nights.  The  terrors  of  the  first  occasion  are  described : 
"  And  the  sight  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  was  like  devouring  fire 
on  the  top  of  the  mount  in  the  eyes  of  the  children  of  Israel " 
(Ex.  xxiv.  17).  Of  this  Moses  said  :  "  For  I  was  afraid  of  the 
anger  and  hot  displeasure,  wherewith  the  Lord  was  wroth  against 
you"  (Deut.  ix.  19).  Here  the  LXX.  unskillfully  translates: 
£xf()ft6<i  el/it  z=  I  exceedingly  fear.  But  the  Apostle  uses  their 
phrase,  and  even  extends  it  by  xal  l^zf^o/io?  -  and  (am)  trembling. 
The  description,  for  we  see  it  is  that  rather  than  quotation,  is 
true  to  the  facts.  Moses  did  fear ;  and  trembling  would  be  the 
physical  manifestation  of  it.  And  the  cause  of  his  fear  was  that 
burning  manifestation  of  God,  "like  devouring  fire,"  that  he 
had  before  encountered  without  dread,  but  which  then,  because 
God  was  wroth  with  His  people,  was  the  manifestation  of  what 
anger  in  such  a  God  must  be.  It  is  such  "  palpable  and  kindled 
fire  "  that  the  Apostle  means  to  deny  of  the  Christian  situation. 
It  is,  therefore,  to  give  precision  to  what  he  would  have  under- 
stood that  he  adds  : 

Ver.  21.  And  so  fearful  was  the  appearance,  Moses  said,  I 
exceedingly  fear  and  quake. 

We  reiterate,  no  discrepancy  appears  in  this  reference.  The 
Apostle  denies  certain  traits  of  the  Christian  situation  where  the 
readers  are  come  to  hear  God  speak.  They  are  traits  which,  if 
existent,  might  naturally  have  the  effect  of  making  those  who 
hear,  decline  to  hear  more  in  the  same  way,  and  instead  have 
recourse  to  Moses  again.  The  traits  are  such  as  were  once  attend- 
ant on  God's  speaking.  The  voice  was  heard,  e.  g.,  by  the  peo- 
ple, and  they  could  not  bear  it ;  the  sight  of  jialpable  and  kindled 
fire  was  once  seen,  e.  (j.,  by  Moses,  who  was  greatly  afraid.  There 
is  nothing  in  this  that  looks  like  confounding  different  events,  or 
that  makes  the  Apostle  seem  to  say,  that  ]\Ioses  confessed  to  fear 


484  YE  HAVE  COME  TO  ZION.  [xii.  22-24. 

and  trembling  at  the  terrors  of  Sinai  on  an  occasion  of  which 
nothing  of  the  kind  is  recorded.  There  is,  therefore,  no  ground 
for  asking :  how  did  the  Apostle  know  that  Moses  trembled  ? 
Thus,  while,  on  the  one  hand,  there  has  been  needle'ss  zeal  in 
vindicating  the  veracity  of  the  Apostle,  even  to  assuming  that  he 
had  knowledge  of  the  fact  by  special  inspiration,^  there  has,  on 
the  other,  been  manifested  too  much  facility  in  admitting,  that,  on 
account  of  an  inexact  memory  of  the  record,  he  has  ascribed  to 
the  occasion  of  giving  the  law  what  occurred  at  another  time.^ 

Ver.  22.  But  ye  have  come  to  Zion,  mount  and  city  of  the  liv- 
ing God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  to  myriads  of  angels,  23.  to 
a  festal  concourse  and  assembly  of  first-born  who  are  enrolled  in 
heaven,  and  to  God  the  Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  perfected 
just  ones,  24.  and  to  Jesus  the  mediator  of  a  fresh  covenant,  and 
to  blood  of  sprinkling  that  speaks  better  than  Abel. 

It  is  thus  the  Apostle  describes,  in  a  positive  and  affirmative 
way,  what  the  Christian  situation  is.  As  has  been  noted  above, 
the  primary  notion  is  to  describe  the  present  situation  in  which 
God  speaks  and  we  hear.  The  traits  are  expressed  by  so  many 
substantives  in  the  dative,  with  nothing  to  distinguish  them  as 
more  or  less  familiar  subjects  or  in  any  other  way.  Thus  the 
affirmation  that  what  believers  have  come  to,  is  Zion,  is  as  much 
particular  and  express  affirmation  as  that  they  have  come  to  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem,  or  to  the  Judge  of  all.  This  remark  seems 
too  obvious  to  need  to  be  made.  But  the  obsen^ation  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  (^unteract  the  prevalent  disposition  to  read  our 
passage  as  if  the  Apostle  said :  Ye  have  not  come  to  INIount 
Sinai  but  to  Mount  Zion.  When  one  so  reads  he  does  not  observe 
that  the  effect  is  to  make  Mount  Zion,  and  that  believers  have 
come  to  it,  a  familiar  notion,  and  that  thus,  what  follows  becomes 
definition  of  the  comprehensive  notion  Mount  Zion.  To  this  must 
be  ascribed  the  common  punctuation  and  rendering  of  Iccoy  op^i,  y.ai 
ToXsi  n.  Z.  =  "  unto  Mount  Zion,  and  unto  the  city  of  the  living 
God ;"  whereas  the  literal  rendering  is  as  given  above.  The  words 
we  have  before  us  are  not  an  answer  to  the  question  :  what  is  this 
Mount  Zion  to  which  believers  have  come  ?     They  answer  the 

^  Ascribed  to  Calov.  ^  So  Liin.,  Toy. 


xii.  22-24.]  textual  criticism.  485 

question  :  wliere  have  believers  come  to  hear  God  speak?  lu  that 
answer  the  item :  it  is  Ziou,  is  as  important  as  any  that  follow 
and  as  something  overlooked,  needs  as  much  to  be  affirmed.  A 
just  appreciation  of  this  matter,  makes  it  plain,  that  it  is  no  more 
proper  to  take  the  notion  Mount  from  this  place  and  supply  it  at 
ver.  18,  than  any  other  of  the  notions  expressed  by  these  sub- 
stantives in  the  dative.  Thus  the  text  as  it  is  given  to  us  at  ver. 
18,  without  ui>£i,  by  overwhelming  documentary  authority, 
appears  on  internal  grounds  to  be  the  only  admissible  text.  So 
it  will  generally  appear,  with  a  well-supported  text  where  proper 
pains  are  taken  to  understand  it.  We  must  only  wonder  what 
kind  of  conception  an  expositor  can  have  of  faithfulness  to  the 
task  before  him,  who  can  say  :  "  As  regards  the  reading,  opet  ver. 
18  is  assuredly  not  genuine.  And  one  easily  sees  how  readily  it 
could  come  by  conjecture  in  those  sources  that  read  o/>-j.  Still, 
the  thought  imperatively  demands  an  o>a  for  a  double  reason, 
partly  as  antithesis  to  the  words  Iihv  opsi  ver.  22,  and  partly  as 
the  noun  for  (^'riXafw/ii'^p,  which,  according  to  its  meanino-^  can- 
not possibly  belong  to  nupi.  Those  copyists,  therefore,  that,  by 
way  of  correction,  have  inserted  the  upet,  have  been  quite  right. 
They  have  just  remedied  an  original  mistake  of  the  autograph. 
In  any  case  the  Author  thought  the  word  opsi,  but  omitted  to 
write  it.  So  here  we  have  the  rare  case  of  a  reading  that,  exter- 
nally regarded,  is  not  genuine,  and  yet  internally  is  genuine."  ^ 

Attention  has  been  called  to  five  different  ways  of  punctuat- 
ing y.ai  ixupidfftv  ayyiliuv  izw^r^yhpzi  xai  IxxXr^aLaf  and  it  has  been  CUS- 

tomary  for  expositors  to  treat  of  this  matter  at  length.  The 
punctuation  w^e  have  adopted  in  the  translation  is  the  one  most 
commonly  used.^  It  has  in  its  favor,  that  when  one  reads  at  sight 
he  would  naturally  so  read,  taking  the  substantives  in  \\\Qi  dative 
uniformly  with  the  following  genitive,  without  suspecting  any 

chiastic  construction  such  as  ayyilMv  7ia'^r,y{)pti  xai  h.y.Xi(T{a  Tpwzo- 
ro/.iov}  It  is  only  when  reflection  comes  in,  suggesting  the  fitness 
of  other  combinations,  that  one  is  moved  to  punctuate  in  a  dif- 
ferent fashion. 

^  Ebrard,  similarly  Bleek,  Lindsay.  ^  See  in  Alford  and  Davidson. 

*  Versions  1611,  1881,  von  Ilof.,  Davidson.  *  Bengel,  Ali'ord. 


486  THE   HEAVENLY   JERUSALEM.  [xii.  22-24. 

Following  the  lead  of  Bengel,  many  ^  have  attempted  to  estab- 
lish an  exact  parallelism  of  antithesis  between  the  things  enum- 
erated negatively  vers.  18-21,  and  the  positive  things  enumerated 
in  our  vers.  22-24,  consisting,  as  they  suppose,  of  seven  mem- 
bers each.  But  the  attempt  is  a  failure.  It  may  commend  itself 
to  minds  that  find  a  mystical  import  in  the  number  seven, 
and  a  charm  in  the  prettiness  of  such  artificial  composition. 
To  what  we  think  is  a  better  taste,  it  would  detract  from  the 
dignity  and  impressiveness  of  the  grand  period  before  us,  to 
imagine  the  Author  counting  his  phrases  on  his  fingers  while  he 
wrote,  in  order  to  give  a  finished  balance  to  his  antithetical 
clauses. 

When  the  Apostle  says  to  his  readers  :  ye  have  come,  it  is,  as 
ver.  25  shows,  in  the  sense  that  they  have  come  where  God  speaks 
to  them  under  the  circumstances  described.  And  as  ver.  25 
further  shows,  it  is  a  situation  where  it  is  to  appear,  whether 
those  who  have  come  there  will  hear,  or  refuse  to  hear  and  turn 
from  him  that  speaks.  Therefore,  the  readers,  as  thus  addressed, 
are  not  included  in  the  descriptive  terms  that  follow.  They  are 
there  where  those  others  are  that  are  described  ;  but  they  are  not 
included  in  that  scene,  while  they  are  as  represented  here.  The 
readers  are  contemplated  as  on  trial.  We  may,  as  nothing  else 
seems  conceivable,  suppose  it  to  be  implied,  that  if  they  hear, 
and  do  not  refuse,  then  they  will  be  comprehended  in  the  com- 
pany of  that  scene  that  the  following  words  describe.  But  here, 
in  the  concluding  period  of  the  especial  subject  of  discourse  in 
this  epistle,  the  Apostle  once  more  addresses  his  readers  from  the 
view-point  of  ii.  1-4  :  "  How  shall  we  escape  having  neglected 
so  great  salvation?"  His  present  description,  like  chapter  i., 
though  in  different  fashion,  is  intended  to  represent  the  circum- 
stances under  which  God  speaks  and  offers  salvation. 

"  Whither  they  have  come  is  Zion,  mount  and  city  of  the  liv- 
ing God.  For  as  Zion  is  both  mount  of  God  and  city  of  God, 
one  is  not  justified  in  connecting  '  Mount  Zion  '  on  the  one  part 
and  '  city  of  God  '  on  the  other.  Zion  is  the  mount  that  Jehovah 
has  chosen  for  His  continuing  abode,^  and  is  the  city  that  He 

» e.  g.,  Del.  ^  Ps.  Ixvii.  17. 


xii.  22-24.]  myriads  of  angels.  487 

loves  above  all  the  dwellings  of  Jacob.'  So  in  Old  Testament 
manner,  and  contrasted  with  the  place  where  Israel  had  seen  and 
heard  those  terrors,  it  stands  as  the  place  of  the  fulfilled  and  still 
to  be  fulfilled  promise  of  the  people  of  God.  But  in  New  Tes- 
tament manner,  it  is  no  longer  on  earth,  but,  as  the  following 
expression  in  apposition  says,  is  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  the 
super-terrestrial  home-place  of  the  New  Testament  people  of  God, 
wlio  know  that  their  king  has  been  exalted  to  God.^  But  where 
God  dwells,  there  are  the  myriads  of  spirits  serving  Him.  His 
revelation  on  Sinai  also  took  place  by  their  ministry.^ — 2?1p 
ri:i:DT?  tm;}^* — ,  and  where  it  is  said  of  Him,  He  has  chosen  Zion 
for  His  habitation  on  earth,  there  is  mentioned  that  countless 
army  of  spirits  that  surrounds  Him.*  But  their  domicile^  is  there 
where  God  sits  enthroned  above  the  world.  Hence,  it  is  said, 
we  are  come  to  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  and  to  myriads  of 
angels."^ 

In  the  expression  :  living  God,^  as  the  Author  uses  it,®  we  have 
observed  a  special  solemnity,  that  would  remind  the  readers  with 
whom  they  have  to  deal/"  when  they  come  before  God,  and  that 
they  cannot  evade  or  slight  Plim  with  impunity.  And  in  the 
present  connection :  Zion  mount  and  city  of  the  living  God,  we 
must  attach  to  it  the  same  significance.  For  :  living  has  a  sig- 
nificance. It  does  not  of  itself,  fall  into  place  in  the  language  as 
adopted  from  the  Old  Testament  mention  of  Zion,  mount  and 
city  of  God.  The  Apostle  himself  adds  this  qualifying  expres- 
sion ;  and  we  must  suppose  he  does  so  with  the  same  sentiment 
that  has  attended  its  previous  use.  This  view  is  corroborated  by 
the  expression  :  judge  of  all,  that  follows,  and  by  the  severe  tone 
of  the  language  vers.  25-29. 

It  is  not  perfectly  obvious  why  the  Apostle  mentions  angels 
in  this  connection.  For,  however  natural  it  is  to  mention  angels 
in  connection  with  the  habitation  of  God,  as  von  Hofmann  rep- 
resents, we  cannot  avoid  remembering  in  this  connection  the 
light  in  which  angels  appear  in  the  previous  mention  of  them  in 

^  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  2.  *  Corap.  Gal.  iv.  26.  '  Corap.  on  ii.  2. 

*  Deut.  xxxiii.  2.  *  Ps.  Ixviii.  18.  ^  Jude  6.  '  von  Hof. 

*  Comp.  iii.  12  ;  ix.  14  ;  x.  31.        "  See  above  on  ix.  14.       '"  Comp.  iv.  13. 


488  WHAT  OF   THE   ANGELS?  [xii.  22-24. 

our  epistle.  In  view  of  that,  the  inquiry  is  natural :  why  are  they 
mentioned  here  ?  Are  these  myriads  of  angels  the  same  that  God 
makes  winds  and  a  flame  of  fire  ?  ^  Are  they  the  same  by  whom 
He  delivered  the  law  at  Sinai,  that  are  now  assigned  their  place 
in  this  Mount  Zion  scene,  that  is  in  such  contrast  with  Sinai  ? 
Are  they  the  same  angels  that  were  charged  in  reference  to  the 
law  to  be  the  agents  of  that  recompense  of  reward  that  was  visited 
on  transgression  and  disobedience?  As  they  are  introduced  into 
this  scene,  are  we  to  remember  that,  as  agents  of  revelation,  they 
have  been  compared  with  the  Sou,  to  express  the  superiority  of 
the  latter?  Are  we  to  think  of  them  at  all  as  having  been  such 
agents  of  revelation  ?  As  we  see  them  introduced  into  this  scene, 
that  pictures  something  of  the  world  to  come  of  which  the  Apostle 
speaks,  are  we  to  remember  that  he  has  said  that  that  world  to  come 
was  not  subjected  to  them  ?  Are  they  the  angels  of  whom  he  says, 
with  emphasis,  and  we  think  even  vehemence,  tliat  the  Son  did 
not  lay  hold  of  them  to  help  them?  (ii.  16.)  These  inquiries 
demand  attention  in  order  to  adjust  the  present  mention  of  angels 
with  the  previous  mention  of  them  in  this  epistle. 

The  simple  expression  that  covers  all  that  is  said  concerning 
holy  angels  iu  this  epistle,  or  anywhere  else  in  scripture,  is  that 
ofi.  14.  "  Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits?"  by  which  is 
meant  ministers  to  God.^  As  such  they  are  to  be  thought  of  as 
they  are  represented  here,  viz.,  gathered  in  their  numbers  in 
God's  habitation.  Whatever  they  may  be  or  appear  elsewhere, 
that  they  are  for  the  ministry  they  are  actually  discharging. 
And  then  it  is  not  all  angels  that  are  such,  but  only  those  that 
are  commissioned  for  that  ministry.  Sometimes  they  are  tem- 
pests, sometimes  a  flame  of  fire.  From  the  same  host  of  minis- 
tering spirits  were  sent  forth  those  that  spoke  the  word  of  the 
law,  and  were  charged  with  seeing  its  penalty  fulfilled  against 
every  transgression  and  disobedience.  And  also  from  the  same 
host  were  sent  forth  all  that  ministered  in  mercy,  in  the  various 
ways  recounted  in  the  history  of  salvation  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  also  in  the  New  Testament,  beginning  with  the  vision  of 
Zacharias  in  the  temple,  and  the  Annunciation  to  the  Virgin 

^  i.  7.  ^  See  on  i.  14. 


xii.  22-24.]        the  church  of  first-born.  489 

Mary,  and  the  lieralJiDg  of  Christ's  birth  to  tlie  shepherds,  and 
continued  afterward  in  many  events.  But  the  angelic  work  of 
salvation,  and  the  dispensation  of  all  pertaining  to  that,  was  not 
subjected  to  them.  It  was  not  they  that  were  sent  forth  for  that ; 
but  ''  God  sent  His  Son  "  ^  to  do  that  work.  His  work  was  no 
subsidy  intended  to  help  the  angels  that  ministered  in  speaking 
and  giving  effect  to  the  law.  It  was  help  to  the  seed  of  Abraham 
to  escape  from  the  effect  of  that  word  and  ministry. 

In  the  scene  before  us,  the  angels  appear  in  a  fashion  consis- 
tent with  all  this.  As  myriads  of  ministering  spirits,  they  could 
not  fail  to  be  mentioned  in  representing  God  in  His  habitation ; 
for  there  they  are,  unless  "sent  forth"  to  a  service.  In  a  rep- 
resentation that  puts  God  judge  of  all  in  the  middle  of  the  groups 
of  persons  enumerated,  the  angels  are  mentioned  on  the  side  with 
the  church  on  earth,  while  on  the  other  side  appear  the  perfected 
spirits,  and  Jesus  the  Mediator.  We  believe  that  this  is  no  for- 
tuitous arrangement,  but  is  well  considered  and  significant.  It 
is  meant  to  represent  a  real  order  in  which  we  are  to  think  of 
the  heavenly  realities  to  which  we  have  come,  and  where  God 
speaks  in  the  Christian  dispensation.  In  this  Ziou  the  angels 
are  mentioned  first,  and  appear  as  ministering  spirits,  not  ruling 
spirits.  Here  men  are  to  find  all  things  put  under  them ;  and 
Jesus,  in  whom  and  by  whom  this  is  realized,  is  seen  crowned 
with  glory  and  honor  as  mediator  of  a  fresh  covenant.  Men, 
however,  are  mentioned  in  two  groups.  First :  the  festal  assem- 
bly and  church  of  first-born  enrolled  in  heaven.  The  word  church 
{i7.y.Xri<7ia)  requires  us  to  understand  the  group  so  designated  to  be 
the  chosen  people  of  God  yet  on  earth.^  And  by  the  expression  : 
enrolled  in  heaven,  which  is  a  metaphor  drawn  from  the  Jewish 
mode  of  registering  genealogies,  the  Apostle  defines  that  he  means 
such  as  are  truly  the  children  of  God,  "  the  true  Israel."  And 
so  this  expression  corroborates  the  inference  already  made  from 
the  word  church.  For  it  is  of  those  on  earth  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
said:  "rejoice  that  your  names  are  written  in  heaven."^  This 
expression  denotes  that  such  are  destined  to  life,*  and  that  they 

'  Rom.  viii.  3.  *  Comp.  Alford  ;  and  Creiner,  I.ex.,  mh.  toc. 

'  Luke  X.  10.  ♦  Comp.  Isa.  iv.  5 ;   Acts  xiii.  48. 


490  GOD   THE   JUDGE   OF   ALL.  [xii.  22-24. 

are  entitled  to  the  fullest  privileges  of  citizenship  in  the  city  of 
God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem/  though  not  yet  in  the  actual 
enjoyment  of  them.  By  calling  this  church  the  festal  assembly 
(jzavTjyvpc}),  the  Apostlc  Only  represents  as  actual  what  the  Lord 
Jesus  expresses  as  proper  for  those  whose  names  are  written  in 
heaven.  The  expression  sets  before  us  a  joyous  concourse  of 
those  that  are  conscious  of  being  heirs  of  the  promise. 

The  words  Tzav-^yupc?  and  ix-Acffia  express  kindred  notions, 
which  is  sufficient  reason  for  conjoining  them.  The  Apostle 
calls  those  that  make  the  church :  first-born,  by  which  he 
expresses  that  the  church  is  made  up  of  first-born.  There  is  no 
unequal  rank  or  privilege  in  the  citizenship  of  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  as  in  the  earthly.  All  are  of  equal  rank,  and  that 
the  highest  and  most  privileged  ;  all  are  first-born.^ 

In  the  middle  place  of  this  enumeration  appears  :  God  the  judge 
of  all.  For  so  we  believe  one  must  translate  ;  and  not  as  many  :* 
"  to  the  judge,  God  of  all."  Why  God  should  be  named  at  this 
point,  and  not  last  of  all  or  first  of  all,  and  why  He  should  be 
called  the  judge,  is  not  a  little  perplexing.  As  for  the  place  of 
mention,  just  because  it  is  unexpected,  which  means  unusual, 
therefore  we  are  to  suppose  it  is  intentional.  In  the  mention  of 
God  as  judge,  we  can  see  no  recurrence  to  the  thought  of  x.  30, 
that  declares  that  God  will  judge  His  people,*  nor  any  place  for 
the  notion  of  a  suffering  and  militant  church.^  The  conception 
here  is  Ziou,  comprehending  all  yet  on  earth  and  those  in  heaven, 
in  contrast  with  any  thing  like  Sinai,  and  with  hearing  Him  who 
spoke  on  earth  by  angels.  God  is  named  between  angels  and 
the  church  yet  in  this  world,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  perfected 
spirits  and  Jesus,  on  the  other,  in  respect  to  the  notion  of  His 
being  judge  of  all  (or  "  God  of  all,"  if  that  be  preferred).  While 
TzdvTOJv  may  express  comprehension  without  limit,  it  is  specially 
meant  to  comprehend  all  that  are  enumerated  in  the  words  before 
us.  God,  as  such,  is  judge  of  them  all.  Or  as  "  God  of  all,"  He 
is  judge  also  of  all ;  which  comes  to  the  same  thing.  It  is  that 
He  is  judge  of  all  that  is  the  emphatic  notion  here.     And  the 

^  Comp.  Phil.  iii.  20 ;  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  6.  ^  Comp.  von  Hof. 

*  e.  g.,  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Liin.         *  Against  Del.,  von  Hof.        *  Against  Del. 


xii.  22-24.]         spirits  of  the  perfected.  491 

rendering  that  expresses  this  directly,  is  therefore  to  be  preferred. 
No  conception  of  God  as  judge,  that  is  botli  scriptural  and  famil- 
iar, seems  so  suitable  in  this  connection  as  that  of  Ps.  1.  1-6. 
"  The  mighty  God,  even  the  Lord,  hath  spoken  and  called  the 
earth  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  unto  the  going  down  thereof. 
Out  of  Zion,  the  perfection  of  beauty,  God  hath  shined.  .  . 
Gather  my  saints  together  unto  me,  those  that  have  made  a  cov- 
enant with  me  by  sacrifice.  And  the  heavens  shall  declare  His 
righteousness ;  for  God  is  judge  himself."  This  is  spoken  in 
the  spirit  of  the  Old  Covenant.  "VVe  can  hardly  suppose  that "  a 
reminiscence  "  of  it  is  traceable  in  the  Apostle's  language,  though 
it  is  suggestive  reading  alongside  of  our  passage,  vers.  18-29. 
But  in  this  Psalm  we  see  God  acting  as  judge  of  His  people. 
" '  For  He  Himself  (and  not  a  delegated  manor  angel) 'is 
judge  '  (on  this  occasion)."  ^  He  is  determining  who  are  rightly 
His  people  and  who  not.  And  so,  in  the  Apostle's  representa- 
tion of  Zion,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  God  is  represented  as  judge 
determining  Himself  who  may  be  citizens  there.  It  is  proper, 
also,  to  recall  here  the  words  of  Jesus :  "  but  to  sit  on  my  right 
hand  and  on  my  left  hand,  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  it  is  for  them 
for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father."  (Matt.  xx.  23.)  As 
God  of  all,  and  so  of  angels  as  well  as  saints,  He  speaks  out  of 
Zion,  Himself  and  not  by  angels,  saying  who  shall  be  saved. 
And  here  we  cannot  help  feeling  a  singular  fitness  in  the  con- 
cluding words  of  the  Ps.  1.  23,  in  connection  with  the  Apostle's 
expression  :  festal  assembly :  "  Whoso  oifereth  praise  glorifieth 
me ;  and  to  him  that  ordereth  his  conversation  aright,  will  I 
show  the  salvation  of  God. 

Next  are  mentioned :  the  spirits  of  perfected  just  ones.  Perfected 
means  the  same  thing  that  wo  found  to  be  the  meaning  at  xi.  40. 
There  it  is  represented  that  Old  Testament  saints  were  not  to  be 
perfected  without  the  saints  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation. 
This  was  realized,  in  the  progress  of  salvation,  by  Christ's  death, 
by  which  lie  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified.  This 
perfection  does  not  describe  a  heavenly  state  as  distinguished 
from  being  on  earth.     For  in  this  same  sense  those  on  earth  ai-e 

'  J.  A.  Alexander,  on  Ps.  1.  6. 


492  MEDIATOR   OF   A   FRESH   COVENANT,     [xii.  22-24. 

perfected  who  have  believed.  As  we  have  seen,  perfected  means, 
having  reached  the  goal  that  consists  in  being  fitted  to  draw  near 
to  God.  That  fitness  they  have  who  by  fiiith  in  Christ  have 
received  the  remission  of  their  sins.  They  have  boldness  to 
enter  into  the  holies  by  the  blood  of  Jesus.^  It  is,  therefore,  a 
mistake  to  consider  perfected  here  as  expressing  of  the  just  ones, 
that  they  have  finished  their  race  through  sufferings  and  trials 
and  reached  their  rest.^  Being  called  just  ones,  the  complete 
expression  of  which  is  "just  ones  by  faith,"  ^  they  are,  as  such, 
perfected,  whether  on  earth  or  in  heaven.  It  is,  then,  neither  as 
just  ones,  nor  as  perfected,  but  as  spirits,  that  they  are  distinguished 
from  those  called  "  first  born."  The  first  born,  though  written 
in  heaven,  are  not  yet  in  heaven,  as  long  as  they  are  called  "  first 
born  written  in  heaven."  Those  that  are  perfected  just  ones,  and  in 
heaven  are  spirits,  and  not  flesh.  Thus  the  distinguishing  designa- 
tion here  is  spirits.  In  naming  them  so,  we  need  not  suppose  that 
the  Apostle  means  only  Old  Testament  saints,  such  as  those  re- 
ferred to  in  chap.  xi.  and  called  "the  cloud  of  witnesses,"  xii.  1. 
It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  he  means  all  who,  having  left  this 
world  before  he  wrote  these  words,  are  with  Christ.*  Indeed,  as 
all  God's  just  ones  who  had  so  departed  were  with  Christ,  it  is 
imreasonable  to  suppose  the  Apostle  can  omit,  in  thought  or 
mention,  any  of  them  when  representing,  as  here,  the  place  where 
Christ  himself  is.  And  this  is  the  next  and  crowning  specifica- 
tion in  this  scene. 

And  to  Jesus  mediator  of  a  fresh  covenant.  It  is  in  contrast 
with  the  occasion  at  Sinai,  when  God  spoke  and  instituted  the 
covenant  by  Moses,  that  Jesus  is  so  named  here.^  We  have, 
however,  a  different  adjective  applied  to  covenant,  from  -svhat  has 
been  used  before  in  pointing  the  same  contrast.  It  has  been 
called  "  new  covenant,"  and  "  second  covenant."  ®  Here  it  is 
called  !/^(>?:=  fresh  or  recent.  If  this  signifies  anything,  we  may 
suppose  it  is  the  notion  expressed  at  viii.  13  in  interpreting  the 
meaning  of  xaivrjv.  For  it  is  only  by  interpretation  that  xar^rj'^  — 
"  new "  gives  the  meaning  of  "  fr&sh,"  i.   e.,  something  that 

1  X.  18,  19.  « As  Alford.  ^  ^  33^  4  ^Q^p  ^^  ^iii.  7. 

^  viii.  13 ;  ix.  1.  ®  Comp.  at  ix.  18  sqq. 


xii.  22-24.]         the  blood  of  sprinkling.  493 

replaces  the  old  that  has  become  stale.  But  that  meaning  is  ex- 
pressed by  vioii^fresh.,  of  its  own  force.  vi(><i  is  used  of  "  fresh 
fruits,"  ^  that  replace  the  old  that  are  stale  or  exhausted  ;  and  of 
"  new  wine  "  ^  in  the  same  sense ;  and  of  "  new  leaven  ; "  ^  and 
of  the  "  new  man,"  *  that  replaces  the  old.  So  the  Apostle  calls 
this  covenant  fresh,  as  that  which  is  and  is  to  be  the  covenant 
that  fixes  the  relations  of  God  and  His  people.  This  seems  pref- 
erable to  the  notion,  that  by  >i<i<i  is  expressed  youthful  freshness 
and  vigour  that  is  to  last.^  What  covenant  is  meant,  has  been 
explained  viii.  7—13;  and  also  how  Jesus  is  mediator  of  it,  viii. 
6  ;  ix.  15-28.  It  was  by  shedding  His  blood  ;  and  this  shows 
the  propriety  of  the  last  of  these  specifications. 

The  blood  of  sprinkling.  It  is  by  the  application  of  Christ's 
blood,  which  is  denoted  by  sprinkling,^  that  the  benefits  of  the 
fresh  covenant  are  received  by  believers.  The  special  benefit 
emphasized  in  the  foregoing  discourse  of  the  Apostle  has  been, 
that  it  fits  believers  to  come  boldly  into  the  holies  before  God,  as 
those  who  have  been  put  into  a  perfect  relation  to  God.^ 

Those  in  this  scene  called  :  "  first  born  written  in  heaven  and 
spirits  of  perfected  just  ones,"  have  received  that  benefit  and 
have  their  place  in  the  holies  or  heaven ;  the  latter  by  actual 
presence,  the  former  by  enrollment  and  destiny.  Those,  his 
readers,  whom  the  Apostle  confronts  with  this  scene  (all  the  traits 
of  which  as  a  scene  are  now  before  us)  saying  :  "  ye  are  come  to 
Zion,"  are  there  to  hear  God  speak,  as  Israel  stood  in  view  of 
Sinai  to  hear  God  speak.  And  now  the  Apostle  adds  to  the 
mention  of  the  blood  of  sprinkling  the  statement:  which  speaks 
better  than  Abel.  We  are  constrained  by  the  reiteration  of  ?.d/.ujv 
in  ver.  25  to  understand  that  there  and  here  the  same  speaking 
and  speaker  are  meant.^  We  must,  therefore,  be  influenced  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  present  words  by  what  follows.  This 
requires  us  to  understand  :  which  speaks  to  mean,  speaks  to  the 
readers,  who  are  not  to  refuse  to  be  spoken  to  thus,  or  refuse  him 
that  speaks.     Therefore,  when  the  Author  makes  a  comparison 

1  LXX.  Exod.  xiii.  4  ;  Josh.  v.  11.  =>  Luke  v.  30. 

3  1  Cor.  V.  7.  *  Col.  iii.  9.  »  Against  Ebrard,  Alford. 

6  Comp.  ix.  13, 14.  ^  x.  19.  8  With  Del ;  against  von  Hof. 


494  SPEAKING    BETTER   THAN   ABEL.  [xil.  22-24. 

between  the  blood  of  sprinkling  speaking  and  Abel  speaking,  we 
must  not  trace  the  likeness  beyond  what  this  will  bear.  Abel's 
blood  spoke  to  God,  this  blood  of  sprinkling  is  referred  to  here 
as  speaking  to  men.  It  is  in  fact  a  comparison  and  not  a  parallel 
that  is  expressed  here.  A  comparison  touches  at  one  point,  like 
a  sphere  resting  on  a  plane.  The  Apostle  says  :  better  than  Abel, 
not :  "  than  the  blood  of  Abel,"  agreeably  to  his  mode  of  refer- 
ring to  the  same  event  xi.  4.  But  the  original  record  in  Gen. 
iv.  10  makes  Abel's  blood  speak,  and  nothing  but  that  fact  jus- 
tifies the  present  comparison.  So  that  the  Apostle's  thought 
must  be  that  the  blood  of  sprinkling  speaks  better  than  Abel's 
blood.  The  xpsirrov  -  better  is  an  adverb ;  ^  and  the  comparison 
is  not  of  the  manner  of  speaking,  viz.,  louder  and  more  effect- 
ively,^ but  of  the  matter  spoken.^  In  favor  of  this  we  may  ac- 
cept, at  least  as  valuable  interpretation,  the  poorly  supported 
xpsizTova  of  the  Text.  Recept,,  which  occasioned  the  translation : 
"  better  things  than  that  of  Abel."  '' 

That  the  Apostle  should  mean  that  the  blood  of  sprinkling 
that  dedicated  the  fresh  covenant  speaks  to  the  readers,  i.  e.,  to 
those  that  hear  the  gospel,  and  that  he  should  expect  his  meaning 
to  be  obvious,  ought  not  to  surprise  us.  For,  as  we  have  noted, 
the  expressions,  Jesus  mediator  of  a  fresh  covenant  and  blood  of 
sprinkling,  are  used  in  express  contrast  with  the  transactions 
attending  the  dedication  of  the  first  covenant.  At  that  time,  as 
has  been  represented  (ix.  1 9-22),  when  the  words  of  the  cove- 
nant had  been  spoken  by  Moses  to  all  the  people  ;  Moses,  acting 
and  speaking  for  God,  took  the  blood  of  sacrifices  and,  sprinkling 
both  the  book  itself  and  the  people,  said  :  "  This  is  the  blood  of 
the  covenant  which  God  commanded  in  regard  to  you."  AVe  do 
not  mean  to  confound  the  occasion  Exod.  xix.,  when  God  spoke 
directly,  and  the  people  refused  to  hear,  and  the  occasions  referred 
to  ix.  18  sqq.,  when  Moses  sjioke  and  the  people  heard.  We  only 
show  how  the  Author  may  represent  the  blood  as  speaking.  In 
our  verse,  that  represents  the  contrasted  situation,  the  speaking 
must  have  the  same  direction  as  in  the  former  case,  viz.,  to  those 
whom  the  covenant  concerns.     And  the  real  speaker  is  God,  also, 

»  Ck)mp.  1  Cor.  vii.  38.      « Against  von  Hof.      ^  Alford.      *  Version  1611. 


xii.  25.]  WHAT   THE   BLOOD   SAYS.  495 

as  in  the  former  case,  when  Moses  spoke,  but  God  speaking  in 
his  Sou. 

What  the  blood  of  sprinkling  says  wlien  it  speaks,  must  be  ob- 
vious from  its  very  designation,  especially  as  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  the  fresh  covenant  and  the  mediator  of  the  same. 
It  is  the  new  covenant  in  Christ's  blood.*  It  perfects  forever 
them  that  are  sanctified.  It  cleanses  the  conscience  from  dead  works. 
It  entitles  those  that  receive  it  to  the  blessings  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, and  redeems  them  from  the  transgressions  of  the  old.  By 
that  blood  they  enter  boldly  the  holies  and  into  the  perfect  com- 
munion with  God  that  is  proper  to  a  perfect  relation  with  God. 
In  a  word,  it  speaks  the  very  truth  that  the  Apostle  has  so  amply 
elaborated  in  this  epistle,  to  those  who  were  resorting  to  Moses 
and  the  dead  works  of  those  ordinances  of  the  covenant  instituted 
through  him.  The  blood  of  sprinkling  speaks  thus  for  God,  in 
the  presence  of  God  the  judge  of  all.  And  there,  while  it  speaks, 
are  the  Mediator  of  the  fresh  covenant,  and  the  trophies  of  His 
saving  work,  and  the  angels  in  myriads.  With  reference  to  the 
angels,  in  view  of  w4iat  is  said  of  them  i.  14-ii.  3,  and  the  reiter- 
ation in  the  words  that  now  follow  of  the  same  threatening  tone 
used  there,  and  the  same  ix^suysr^  (  =  "  escape  ")  of  alarm  sounded 
there,  we  are  constrained  to  suppose,  that  the  Apostle  would  have 
his  readers  remember,  that  angels  were  charged  to  visit  tiie  just 
recompense  of  reward  on  transgressions  against  the  first  covenant, 
if  men  refused  that  blood  that  was  the  redemption  of  those  trans- 
gressions. 

Ver.  25  a.     See  that  ye  refuse  not  him  that  speaks. 

Without  connecting  particle,  this  warning  has  a  specially  sol- 
emn emphasis.  ^  It  has,  however,  an  obvious  logical  connection 
with  the  whole  of  the  foregoing  passage,  vers.  1 8-24.  The  rdv 
XaXirv^-a  =liim  that  speaks  has  for  its  suggestion  the  kalowzt  of  the 
foregoing  verse  ;  and  the  iiij  -apfUTr,(jr,(7i}z  -  ye  refuse  not,  the 
TzapriTi'j^TavTo  of  vcr.  19.  We  liavc  already,  under  ver.  24,  given 
the  grounds  for  understanding  that  God  is  the  one  referred  to  as 
speaking.  He  speaks  now  by  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling,"  where — 
as,  in  the  case  of  the  first  covenant,  he  spoke  by  the  tempest  and 

» 1  Cor.  xi.  25 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  28.  ^  Comp.  Del. 


496  REFUSE   NOT   CHRIST   FOR    MOSES.  [xii.  25. 

earthquake  and  other  terrors  of  Sinai.  At  Sinai  the  people 
refused  to  hear,  and  would  have  Moses  the  medium  of  God's  com- 
munication to  them.  The  Apostle  warns  his  readers  not  to  refuse 
in  the  same  way.  The  connection  of  thought  with  ver.  19  shows 
this.  And  refusing  the  same  way  must  include  the  notion  of  hav- 
ing recourse  to  Moses  :    avrt  too  i^eou  rdv  Mwuaia  XajS^iv,  xa\  d>T\  rcbv 

xaivwv  -/j()ff/j.eivai  Toii  TzaXmaii}  We  have  the  whole  foregoing 
portion  of  the  epistle  for  this  interpretation. 

The  Apostle  enforces  his  warning  by  an  appeal  that  Is  in  the 
same  spirit  of  ii.  1-3,  and  even  reproduces  its  language  in  :  how 
shall  we  escape. 

Yer.  25  6.  For  if  those  escaped  not  on  earth  that  refused  him 
that  was  declaring  his  will,  much  more  we,  who  turn  away  from 
him  that  [is]  from  heaven. 

Our  first  effort  must  be  to  justify  this  translation.  In  doing 
so  we  assume  the  correctness  of  the  text  as  given  by  Tisch.  VIII. 
W.  and  H.,  Lach.,  Treg.,  Alford,  Del.,  Liin.,  etc. 

The  rendering  of  rov  yj}riimTiX.i>v-a-=^\ava.  that  was  declaring  his 
will,  is,  first,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  rendering  :  *'  him 
that  spake,"  that  makes  it  appear  as  if  the  Author  used  again  the 
rov  XaXnTr^ra  of  the  forgoing  clausc ;  and,  second,  it  is  an  effort  to 
do  justice  to  the  real  meaning  of  the  word,  which  implies  God  as 
the  subject,  by  its  own  force  ^,  and  means  here,  as  at  viii.  5  ;  xi. 
7,  the  divine  deliverance  and  direction  expressive  of  God's  will 
and  counsel.^  At  xi.  7  the  rendering  of  the  passive  :  "  being 
warned,"  in  the  sense  of  having  warning  of  what  is  coming, 
answers  very  well.  But  in  the  present  connection  the  rendering  : 
"  him  that  was  warning,"  ^  (for  it  is  the  imperfect  participle) 
would  be  misleading,  because  it  would  convey  the  notion  that 
those  spoken  of  refused  the  warning,  which  is  no  more  intended 
here  than  at  ver.  19.  The  refusal  related  to  the  person  of  him 
that  was  commanding  ordinances,  and  was  in  favor  of  the  person 
of  ISIoses  as  the  intermediary. 

The  rendering :  escaped  on  earth,  which  takes  ^^ifu/ov  iizi  yrj? 
as  connected,  is  the  rendering  that  any  one  must  make  when 

^Theodoret,  see  in  Alford.  *Comp.  Alford. 

*  Comp.  Grimm.,  Lex.,  s.  v.  *  Comp.  version  of  1881. 


kii.  25.]  A    NEW    RENDEKLNG   JUSTIFIED.  497 

reading  at  sight.  The  rendering  that  connects  i-\  -p-^  with  t6v 
Xprj;jaz{!:o;>Ta  appears  to  be  accounted  for  by  calling  it  "  a  trajectiou 
not  unusual  with  our  writer,"  ^  or  "  a  favorite  hyperbaton  with 
our  Author."  ^  But  tlie  examples  appealed  to  ^  have  nothing 
analogous  to  the  present  language. 

Our  l-\  ^/79  expressing  locality,  and  i-\  zr^v  yrjv  expressing 
direction,  always  follow  the  predicate  that  they  qualify.  Thus 
von  Hofmaun  justly  declares,  the  would-be  hyperbaton  without 
example.  He  would  relieve  the  situation  by  rejecting  the  best 
supported  text,  in  favor  of  the  Text  Recept. :  rdv  in\  t^?  ^/;?  x.  r.  l, 
giving  as  a  reason  only  that  the  better  support  of  the  text  we 
accept  above  is  outweighed  by  the  necessity  of  supposing  such  an 
unexampled  hyperbaton.  We  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  deal 
with  the  text  in  tliat  fashion,  any  more  than  in  the  fashion  on 
which  we  animadverted  under  ver.  22.  The  only  necessity,  as 
well  as  the  only  honest  way,  is  to  give  a  true  rendering  of  the 
text  we  have ;  and  that  we  suppose  we  have  done  above. 

This  rendering,  that  connects  :  on  earth  with  :  escaped  not, 
destroys  the  antithesis  :  "  on  earth — from  heaven  "  as  it  has  com- 
monly been  interpreted,  viz.,  "  him  that  speaks  on  earth — him 
[that  speaks]  from  heaven."  What  made  that  contrast  seem 
intended,  was  the  notion  that  it  has  been  already  introduced  in 
vers.  18-24,  viz.,  Mt.  Sinai  on  earth  and  Christ  in  heaven.  But 
our  interpretation  of  what  is  represented  there  removes  that 
reason  for  supposing  the  contrast  of  earth  and  heaven  has  been 
introduced.     There  is,  therefore,  not  sufficient  ground  for  supply- 

^^g  ;f/>ij/iar£'Covra  much  IcsS  Xahwvra  at  tc)>  a-'  oopavibv.      The  latter 

is  a  complete  enough  expression  of  itself;  and  we  acciordingly 
render  it :  him  that  [is]  from  heaven.^ 

Turning  now  to  the  interpretation  of  our  text  as  translated 
above,  we  must  remember,  that  as  the  ixrivot  ^  =  those,  refers  to  the 
mention  of  the  Israelites  in  ver.  19,  so  that  mention,  and  tJie 
facts  of  tlie  ancient  case,  preclude  our  supposing  that  the  Apostle 
designates  a  sinful  transaction  on  their  part  when  they  refused 
Him  that  issued  His  commands,  i.  e.,  God,  and  would  have 

*  Alford.  2  Del  » j^  15,16;  xi:.  11. 

*  Version  of  1881,  Margin.  ^  (Jomp.  on  iv.  11,  e/ca/w^v. 

32 


498  IF  THOSE  ESCAPED   NOT  WHO  [xii.  25. 

Moses  instead.  God  said  of  that  conduct :  "  they  have  well 
said  all  that  they  have  spoken."  ^  This,  then,  must  be  held  to 
as  an  ascertained  and  well-defined  thought,  that  must  determine 
our  understanding  of  all  that  is  said  here.  It  disposes  of  the 
common  ideas  with  reference  to  what  is  meant  by  escape.  In 
answer  to  the  question :  how  escape  ?  it  is  said  :  "  either  (1)  they 
did  not  escape  hearing  the  voice  on  account  of  their  refusal ;  or 
(2),  which  seems  more  probable,  they  did  not  escape  God's  ven- 
geance."^ But  in  reference  to  (1),  they  did  escape  as  they 
desired ;  for  God  gave  them  Moses  ;  and,  in  reference  to  (2),  God 
would  not  take  vengeance  on  them  for  conduct  that  he  com- 
mended. It  is  said,^  that  the  object  of  escaped  is  the  subject 
intended  in  /pyj,uaTi!^ovL  a,  i.  e.,  God.  But,  beside  this  being  con- 
fessedly a  strained  construction,  that  draws  the  object  of  iUyoyov 
from  a  predicative  participle  that  is  itself  dependent  on 
7rapmT7]ffdfj.sv()c,  it  is  also  Confessedly  only  admissible  by  virtue  of 
adopting  the  ill-supported  reading  tov  in)  yrj?  x.  t.  L  It  is  com- 
mon to  suppose  that :  refuse,  etc.,  here  means  the  continued 
rebelliousness*  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wanderings.  If  by  this  is 
meant  that  obstinacy,  to  the  exchmon  of  what  is  specially  referred 
to  ver.  19,  then  a  proper  interpretation  forbids  it.  But  if  it 
means  that  obstinacy  as  the  development  of  that  which  is  referred 
to  ver  19,*  it  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  ask  :  how  can  a  good  tree 
bring  forth  evil  fruit  ?     For  God  called  that  refusal  good. 

We  must  suppose,  then,  for  which  indeed  there  is  abundant 
reason,  that  ixipeuysc/  =to  escape,  and  (psuysv^^  have  a  pregnant 
Christian  meaning  that  involves  the  object  even  when  not  express- 
ing it,  just  as  <Td>!^eiv  =to  save,  and  awr-qpia,  so  that  it  contains  in 
itself  the  answer  to  the  question  :  escaped  from  what  ?  as  "  saved," 
of  itself  answers  the  question:  saved  from  what?  We  have  found 
reason  for  so  interpreting  ixfebyscv  at  ii.  3.^  The  extended 
warning  of  iii.  7 — iv.  11  has  intervened  since  then,  Avhich  holds 
up  the  fate  of  those  that  perished  in  the  wilderness,  who  were  the 
very   ones  that   refused   to  hear  God   and  would  hear  Moses 

»  Deut.  V.  28.  "  Alford.  '  von  Hof. 

*  Baumgarten,  Bleek  in  Del.  *  Luke  xxi.  36  ;  Eom.  ii.  3 ;  Heb.  ii.  3. 

*  Matt.  iii.  7 ;  and  Luke  iii.  7  ;  xxiii.  33.  ''  Comp.  ii.  3  and  note. 


Xii.  25.]  CHOSE   MOSES   INSTEAD   OF   GOD  ;  499 

instead.  This  is  sufficient  to  make  ix^eijyecv  here  express  its  own 
meaning.  The  Apostle  means  :  if  they  escaped  not  the  recom- 
pense of  transgressions,  as  we  see  they  did  not  in  the  provocation 
in  the  wilderness.  By  saying  :  those  that  refused  him  that  was 
declaring  his  will,  the  Author  is  not  describing  their  crime,  but 
describing  the  persons  that  did  not  escape.  And  this  breviloquence, 
for  such  it  is  (which,  as  we  have  seen,  involves  the  notion  that 
they  accepted  Moses  instead),  expresses  that  the  subjects  who  did 
so,  did  not  thereby  escape,  but  came  under  the  word  spoken  by 
angels,  and,  as  the  event  showed,  incurred  the  guilt  of  transgres- 
sion and  consequently  the  punishment.^ 

Vt^e  are  constrained,  then,  to  understand  the  Apostle  to  say  :  if 
they  escaped  not  on  earth.  This  would  seem  an  ordinary  mode  of 
expression  were  there  nothing  in  the  context  to  suggest,  that  the 
Apostle  expresses  the  antithesis  of:  on  the  earth  and  from 
heaven,  that  is  so  common  in  the  New  Testament.  But  with 
reference  to  this  antithesis  that  has  been  so  universally  assumed, 
it  is  attended  with  obvious  difficulties.  We  have  noticed  the 
violent  construction  that  It  involves,  that  is  excused  as  an 
hyperbaton.  But  conceding  that  as  allowable,  we  have  the 
difficulty  of  the  facts  involved.  That  interpretation  makes  the 
Apostle  represent  that  the  revelation  at  Sinai  was  God  speaking 
on  earth,  and  that  the  revelation  of  the  Gos|)el  was,  in  contrast, 
a  speaking  from  heaven.  But  the  common  Scriptural  way  of 
representing  this  is  directly  the  reverse.  "  Ye  have  seen,"  said 
God,  with  reference  to  the  occasion  when  the  Israelites  refused 
Him,  "  that  I  have  talked  with  you  from  heaven."  ^  On  tlie  other 
hand,  the  signature  of  the  Gospel  revelation  is:  "The  word  was 
made  flesh  and  dwelt  with  men.^  And  this  is  the  very  concep- 
tion that  underlies  the  Apostle's  representations  ii.  1-3,  and 
throughout  that  whole  chapter.  Nothing  in  the  present  context 
is  so  explicit  as  to  outweigh  these  considerations  and  reverse  the 
whole  order  of  Scriptural  thought  in  these  matters.  It  should 
be  admitted,  then,  that  a  fashion  of  thinking  has  been  imposed 

1  Comp.  ii.  1-3. 

^  Exod.  XX.  22 ;   comp.  Deut.  iv.  36  ;   Neh.  ix.  13. 

'John  i.  14;  comp.  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  2  Cor.  v.  19. 


600  HOW   MUCH   LESS  SHALL   WE,  [xii.  25. 

on  the  text  from  without,  and  enforced  in  violation  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation. 

Turning,  now,  to  the  expression  :  if  they  escaped  not  on  earth., 
let  us  recall  such  expressions  as  that  concerning  the  mustard  seed: 
"  though  it  be  less  than  all  the  seeds  on  the  earth,"  ^  and  that  con- 
cerning Christ's  coming  again,  respecting  which  he  asks  :  "  shall  he 
find  faith  on  the  earth  ? "  ^  These  involve  no  antithesis  of  on 
earth  and  from  heaven,  but  simply  the  notion :  in  all  the  world. 
And  such,  we  suppose,  is  the  meaning  the  Apostle  would  express 
here.  He  would  express  the  impossibility  of  escape ;  there  is  no 
escape  on  earth.  For  the :  not  escaping  comprehends  an 
extended  history,  and  varied  situations  ;  even  if  we  think  only 
of  the  judgments  in  the  wilderness.  For  it  was  not  then,  when 
they  refused  God,  nor  then  at  Sinai,  that  they  escaped  not. 
But  that  generation  that  refused  had  an  experience  that  justified 
the  expression  :  they  escaped  not  on  earth. 

The  fitness  of  the  notion  thus  expressed  is  the  more  apparent 
when  we  observe,  that  it  is  the  notion  to  be  supplied  in  the  next 
clause :  how  much  more  we,  i.  e.,  how  much  more  shall  we  not 
escape  on  earth,  who  turn  from  him  that  is  from  heaven.  The 
view  that  would  find  the  antithesis  of:  on  earth — from  heaven, 
is  attended  with  another  difficulty,  viz.,  as  to  the  person  who  is 
speaker  in  either  case.'  Shall  we  take  the  speaker  as  the  same 
in  both  instances  ?  or  as  God  in  the  first  instance  speaking  on 
earth,  and  Christ  in  the  second  as  speaking  from  heaven  ?  The 
same  difficulty  suggests  itself  with  the  construction  we  have 
adopted ;  with  this  difference,  however,  viz.,  that  the  antithesis 
on  earth — from  heaven,  does  of  itself  constrain  one  to  expect  the 
same  subject  in  both  parts  of  the  antithesis,  to  which  then  is 
added  the  constraining  influence  of  ver.  26.  ou  i]  <pu)vrj  x.  r.  X., 
as  commonly  rendered,  where  the :  "  whose  voice,"  etc.,  requires 
us  to  think  of  only  the  same  speaker.  The  construction  we  have 
adopted  presents  only  one  conception  of  the  Author's  meaning 
here,  viz.,  a  contrast  between  refusing  to  hear  God  speak  as 
those  (^tx£i]^oi)  of  old  refused,  and  refusing  to  hear  Christ  (ver  25 

1  Mark  iv.  31.  '  Luke  xviii.  8. 

'  Comp.  the  representation  of  the  question  in  Lindsay. 


xii.  25.]  REFUSING   THE  SON   FOB   MOSES.  501 

a) ;  according  to  which,  by  :  him  from  heaven  must  be  meant 
Christ.  Such,  moreover,  is  what  every  reader  feels  must  be 
intended  here ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  our  verse  25  6,  is  commonly 
quoted  in  that  sense.  Only  strong  exegetical  constraint,  espe- 
cially the  influence  of  oo  ij  ^ <yv/j',  ver.  26,  compels  many  to  give 
up  that  view,  and  understand  that  God  is  meant  as  the  speaker 
in  both  instances.  AVe  think  that  ver.  26  rightly  construed  has 
no  such  influence  on  the  meaning  of  our  ver.  25  b.  The  Apos- 
tle's meaning,  then,  is  :  how  shall  we  escape  on  earth  if  we  turn 
from  Christ  who  is  the  agent  of  revelation  to  us,  and  an  agent 
from  heaven,  speaking  to  us  by  that  blood  of  sprinkling,  and 
revealing  all  that  is  accomplished  thereby.  Thus  far  the  thought 
is  but  the  reiteration  of  ii.  3,  except  that  instead  of :  "  so  great 
salvation  "  as  preached,  we  are  pointed  here  to  the  great  ransom  that 
effects  the  salvation.  What  adds  to  the  thought  as  here  expressed, 
is  the  notion  of  a  fortiori  by  comparison  with  the  ancient  case. 
But  the  ancient  case,  as  here  referred  to,  was  not  one  of  despising 
God  or  the  ordinances,  but  of  refusing  to  hear  God  and  choosing 
Moses  instead  ;  and  yet  they  escaped  not.  And,  correspondingly, 
in  the  Christian  case,  what  is  meant  by  ar^ixTTptipoiizvot^  "turnings 
away,"  is  not  something  more  intense  or  contemptuous  than 
TzapaiTrj<7dii.vM)i  =  refusing,  but  essentially  the  same  thing  as  it  con- 
cerned Christ  as  the  speaker.  It  means  a  refusing  to  hear  him 
speak,  and  turning  from  what  he  says  by  his  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant, to  take  Moses  instead.  If  the  others  escaped  not,  when 
refusing  to  hear  God  w^ith  so  much  reason  for  doing  so,  how 
much  more  certain  is  it  that  we  shall  not  escape,  if  we  turn  from 
him  who  speaks  the  very  "  things  that  accompany  salvation  ! " 

Having  so  expressed  himself,  the  Author,  as  we  see,  has  come 
back  to  the  point  from  which  he  started  ii.  1—3.  There  the 
thought  is  propounded  interrogatively,  as  a  subject.  Here  it  is 
affirmetl  positively  as  a  demonstrated  conclusion.  As  such,  the 
present  statement  has  the  sound  of  a  finished  period,  conclusive, 
solemn  and  impressive.  To  extend  it,  by  the  expression  of  addi- 
tional, and  not  closely  related  thoughts,  weakens  its  force.  Here, 
tlien,  we  put  a  period,  and  understand  vers,  26—20  to  express  some-" 
thing  quite  distinct,  with  a  view  to  the  final  exhortation  ver.  29. 


502  CONCLUSION   OF   THE   WHOLE   MATTER.  [xii.  26. 

Ver.  26.  He  whose  voice  shook  the  earth  then,  now  however 
has  promised,  saying :  Yet  once  will  I  make  to  tremble  not  the 
earth  only,  but  also  the  heaven. 

As  the  00  7j  ^io>rj  X.  T.  X.  has  commonly  been  rendered,^  viz., 
whose  voice  then  shook  the,  etc.,  it  connects  this  sentence  closely 
with  the  foregoing  verse.  This  is  natural  with  the  reading  of 
the  Text.  Recep.  and  the  supposed  antithesis  of:  Him  that  spoke 
on  earth — Him  that  speaks  from  heaven.  So  construed  the  do 
refers  to  rw  an  oupa^Av  =i "  Him  from  heaven,"  and  by  what  is 
here  said  of  the  voice  then  shaking  the  earth,  it  is,  as  we  have 
noted,  made  necessary  to  understand  the:  "  Him  from  heaven" 
to  mean  God.  To  the  common  rendering  of  our  verse  there  are 
two  objections,  beside  the  considerations  offered  above.  (1)  As 
it  is  prompted  by  the  supposed  antithesis  of:  earth  and  heaven, 
we  observe  that  here  the  antithesis  does  not  exist,  but  both  are 
combined  in  one  common  effect,  and  heaven  here  cannot  mean 
the  same  as  heaven  vers.  22,  23,  25.  (2)  It  makes  rj  ^ur^yj  the 
prominent  subject  of  which  we  expect  to  hear  something  more 
predicated ;  but  instead  of  that,  the  subject  expressed  by  oo  is 
taken  for  the  predicate  :  he  hath  promised.^  (3)  It  gives  the 
impression  that  the  Apostle  in  quoting  Hag.  ii.  6,  understands 
the  Prophet  to  make  a  contrast  with  the  occasion  at  Sinai,  when 
God  shook  the  earth,  and  to  announce  that  he  will  make  another 
and  final  shaking,  when  both  heaven  and  earth  shall  tremble. 
Whereas,  when  we  read  the  Prophet  we  find  nothing  of  the  kind. 
His:  "yet  once,"^  if  it  involves  a  reference  to  previous  convul- 
sions, means  something  recent,  most  likely  the  recent  revolution 
in  the  Babylonian  empire.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  "within  a 
little,"  of  the  original  (which  is  omitted  in  the  LXX.  rendering 
and  in  the  Apostle's  quotation),  shows  that  the  Prophet,  by :  "I 
will  shake  heaven  and  earth,"  means  national  convulsions  soon 
to  be,  and  which  came  to  pass  before  Christ  and  in  preparation 
for  His  kingdom.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  the  Apostle 
understood  the  Prophet's  words  in  any  but  their  plain  sense.  For 
the  passage  at  and  long  before  his  time  had  been  one  of  the  most 

'  But  see  MacKnight  who  translates :    "  His  voice  then  shook  the,"  etc. 
*  See  Liia.  *  Comp.  Henderson  on  Hag.  ii.  6. 


xii-  27.]  NOW,  THIS  :  yet  oxce.  503 

accepted  Messianic  prophecies,  and  commonly  understood  in  the 
sense  just  expressed.'  Neither  of  these  difficulties  (1),  (2), 
appears  if  we  translate :  He  whose  voice  shook  the  earth  then. 
For  this  gives  us  the  proper  subject  for:  "has  promised,"  with- 
out indirection.  And  :  the  voice  that  shook  the  earth  then,  defines 
the  subject  in  the  way  the  Apostle  would  have  it  regarded  in  this 
present  connection,  without  imputing  to  the  Prophet,  whose  words 
he  quotes,  any  reference  to  Sinai  and  its  shaking. 

So  construing  the  Apostle's  words,  their  sentiment  is  easily 
interpreted ;  and  that  he  quotes  the  Prophet's  language  in  the 
imperfect  form  of  the  LXX.  presents  no  difficulty,  nor  does  his 
inverting  the  order  of  the  words :  "  the  heaven  and  the  earth," 
and  adding  :  not  only — but. 

With  reference  to  what  has  been  represented  ver.  25,  but  with- 
out grammatical  connection,^  the  Apostle  expresses  the  impressive 
thought  before  us.  He  designates  God  as  subject  by  circumlo- 
cution ^  drawn  from  the  foregoing  representation,  and  recapitulat- 
ing it.  The  phenomena  of  Sinai,  to  which  reference  is  made,  justify 
the  (implied)  statement  that  God  then  shook  the  earth,  as  Jud.  v. 
4  sq.,  Ps.  Ixviii.  8  sq.  show.  He  says  of  God,  so  defined,  that 
now  he  has  promised,  saying,  etc.  The  now  is  antithetical  of 
then,  and  the  perfect :  has  promised,  is  the  proper  tense  by  which 
to  refer  to  a  prophecy  of  which  one  would  make  a  present  use, 
(a)  whether  to  point  to  the  present  or  future  fulfillment,  (b)  or  to 
draw  an  inference  regarding  the  character  of  the  promiser  or 
regarding  his  purpose  or  methods.  It  is  the  latter  use  that  the 
Apostle  makes  of  the  words  he  quotes.  And  now,  as  antitheti- 
cal of  then,  expresses  that  God  who  Avas  manifested  at  Sinai,  is 
the  same  who  has  said  :  yet  once  I  will  make  to  tremble  not  only 
earth  but  also  heaven. 

The  Apostle  proceeds  to  interpret  the  point  of  so  representing 
God. 

Ver.  27.  Now  this :  yet  once,  signifies  the  removing  of  the 
things  that  are  shaken,  as  made  in  order  that  they  may  await  those 
things  that  cannot  be  shaken. 

>  Comp.  Henderson,  Hab.  ii.  6,  and  Whitby. 

2  Comp.  viii.  13.  s  Comp.  ii.  10 ;  v.  5 ;  x.  30. 


504  MUTABLE   THINGS   MADE   THxiT  THEY  [xii.  27. 

It  is  common  to  understand  the  Apostle  to  lay  stress  on  the 
er£  S/ra?  which  is  then  translated  :  "  yet  once  more/'  ^  and  that  he 
deduces  from  it  what  is  stated  in  the  following  words.  But 
etc  a-jza^  means  yet  once,  leaving  it  unexpressed  whether  heaven 
and  earth  shall  or  shall  not  be  made  to  tremble  still  again,  when 
it  has  been  done  that  once.  Whereas,  "  yet  once  more  "  implies 
that  the  trembling  shall  be  once  and  final.  Only  :  yet  once  and 
not :  "  yet  once  more  "  is  a  true  rendering  of  the  Hag.  ii.  6.  Nor 
may  we  suppose  the  Apostle  means  more  here.^  But :  yet  once 
is  no  adequate  premise  for  the  inference  that  would  be  expressed 
in  the  following  words.  We  are  compelled  to  think,  therefore, 
that  by :  this  yet  once  the  Apostle  means  the  whole  sentiment  of 
the  Prophet  as  he  has  quoted  it,  as  if  he  said  :  yet  once,  etc.^  It  is 
the  whole  quotation  that  affords  the  premise  for  the  inference  we 
have  in  our  verse.  What  the  Apostle  infers  is  as  expressed  in 
the  rendering  we  have  given,  which  is  materially  different  from 
what  is  usually  understood.  The  common  rendering,  viz.,  "  sig- 
nifieth  the  removing  of  those  things  that  are  shaken,  as  of  things 
that  have  been  made,  that  those  things  which  cannot  be  shaken 
may  remain"*  makes  w^  Trenacrj/ii'^cov  an  explanation,  derived  from 
the  nature  of  created  things,  of  how  it  comes  that  the  things 
shaken  are  removed;  so  it  happens  to  things  made.  And  when 
they  are  removed,  it  is  in  order  that  what  is  not  to  be  shaken 
may  remain ;  such  is  the  supposed  reasoning.  If  such  a  state- 
ment is  not  to  be  regarded  as  nonsense,  it  must  still  be  rejected 
as  irrelevant  here.  For  the  things  that  remain  must  be  not  dif- 
ferent from  the  new  heaven  and  new  earth  of  which  Isaiah  speaks, 
and  it  is  expressly  said  that  they  too  are  created,  made.^     We 

connect    the    w?  ■KeTzotrjiii'^wv    with    7va   iithrj   ra  iJ.rj  GaXzoop.zva,  and 

then  /istVjj  must  have  the  meaning  of:  wait  for,^  and  ra  //5j 
aaXeuojizva  is  its  object.  Then  our  statement  declares,  that  the 
things  that  are  shaken  were  made  in  order  that  they  might  wait 

^  Versions  1611,  1881.  ^  Calvin  ;  Sed  Apostolits  in  hoc  voce  non  insistit. 

'  So  MacKnight ;  Kurtz ;  Hengstenberg,  Chrktologie ;  Alford,  pronounces  it 
absurd.  *  Version  1881,  similarly  1611. 

*  Isa.  Ixv.  17  ;  Ixvi.  22,  a  eyd)  irniu  fiivei  evumov  hfiov. 
®So  von  Hof.,  Stuart;  see  others  in  Del.,  Alford;  comp.  Acts.  xx.  5,  15,  23. 


xii.  27.]  MAY   AWAIT  THINGS   IMMUTABLE.  505 

for  the  things  tliat  cannot  be  shaken,  and  it  appeals  as  proof  of 
it  to  tlie  promise  that  they  shall  be  removed.  Such  is  a  signifi- 
cance the  Apostle  finds  iu  the  words  of  the  Prophet.  The  state- 
ment introduced  by  :  yet  once  involves  such  a  significance.  For 
when  God  says  of  heaven  and  earth  :  "  I  will  make  them  to 
tremble/'  the  meaning  is,  that  He  will  remove  them;  and  this 
He  says  of  things  that  He  Himself  has  made.  He  made  them, 
therefore,  only  to  continue  till  He  should  remove  them.  When 
that  which  is  not  to  be  shaken  and  thus  not  to  be  removed  is 
ready,  then  the  others  shall  be  removed  ;  for  they  only  wait  for 
that.  That  the  things  which  are  not  shaken  have  come,  is  not 
inferred  from  the  words  of  prophecy,  as  is  commonly  supposed  ; 
which  occasions  the  translation  :  "  yet  once  more,"  so  as  to  give 
that  phrase  such  import.  That  they  have  come  is  the  well-known 
fact,  as  Apostle  proceeds  to  state  it  ver.  28  :  "  receiving  a  kingdom 
that  cannot  be  shaken,"  and  it  is  to  this  accepted  fact  that  he 
brings  the  considerations  now  presented  in  order  to  press  the 
exhortation  :  "  let  us  have  grace."  The  fact  that  the  kingdom 
that  was  not  to  be  moved  had  come,  was  one  of  the  fundamental 
truths  of  Christianity  proclaimed  with  the  gospel  itself,  and  it 
should  not  seem  strange  that  it  is  brought  in  here  without  pre- 
face. It  is  not  affirmed  here  that  it  is  not  to  be  moved,  but  is 
named  in  its  recognized  character  as  "  a  kingdom  that  cannot  be 
moved."  Let  us  only  remember,  because  of  its  peculiar  fitness 
to  the  matter  before  us,  the  memorable  prophetic  discourses  of 
Jesus  relating  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  especially  the 
words  :  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall 
not  pass  away."  ^ 

The  sentiment  now  expressed  by  the  Apostle  appears  pertinent 
if  we  take  vers.  26,  27  in  the  way  already  suggested,  as  discon- 
nected grammatically  with  what  precedes.  It  then  a]>pears  as  a 
comprehensive  statement,  like  a  stated  thesis,  that  lays  down  a 
fundamental  principle  that  explains  a  great  variety  of  pheno- 
mena. The  Apostle  has,  in  a  protracted  treatise,  dealt  with  a 
succession  of  them  that  constituted  heaven  and  earth  to  the  Jews, 
i.  e.,  the  sum  total  of  the  Jewish  form  of  religion,  showing  that 

1  Luke  xxi.  33. 


506  A  KINGDOM   IMMOVABLE.  [xii.  28. 

all  have  been  shaken  and  removed :  (a)  the  word  spoken  by 
angels  and  their  ministry  attending  it  (i.,  ii.) ;  (b)  the  mediation 
of  Moses  (iii.  1-6) ;  (c)  the  Levitical  high  priesthood  (v.  1-10) ; 
(d)  the  whole  Levitical  order  of  priests  (vii.) ;  (e)  the  Old  Cove- 
nant (viii.) ;  (f )  the  whole  complex  of  Levitical  sacrifices  with 
the  locality  for  them,  i.  e.,  the  Tabernacle  and  its  appnrtenances 
(ix.) ;  the  law  itself  (x).  The  divine  signature  on  all  these  is,  they 
were  made  to  await  that  which  is  not  shaken  and  not  to  be  removed 
(ix.  8).  The  appropriateness  of  Hab.  ii.  6  to  express  this  appears  in 
its  comprehensiveness,  not  in  a  particular  thing  predicted.  For 
though  a  Messianic  prophecy,  the  Apostle  does  not  develop  its  sense 
in  that  respect,  but  points  to  an  underlying  principle.  What  God 
has  promised  of  heaven  aiid  earth  that  He  made,  comprehends  in 
principle  the  truths  the  Apostle  has  now  represented.  In  desig- 
nating God  by  circumlocution  as  :  He  whose  voice  shook  the  earth 
then,  the  Author  introduces  the  notion  of  the  covenant  and  legis- 
lation instituted  at  Sinai ;  and  so  conuecting  God  as  manifested 
in  that  epoch  with  the  promises  in  Hab.  ii.  6,  and  the  significance 
of  the  thing  promised,  he  denotes  that  the  things  spoken  at  Sinai 
with  the  shaking  of  the  earth,  are  removable  and  removed  when 
God  shakes  not  only  earth  but  also  heaven. 

As  a  thesis-like  comprehensive  statement  and  conclusion,  our 
vers.  26,  27  make  a  most  fitting  finale  to  the  whole  foregoing 
treatise.  And  the  following  verses  28,  29  are  the  equally  fitting 
and  comprehensive  admonition. 

Ver.  28.  Wherefore,  receiving  a  kingdom  that  cannot  be 
shaken,  let  ns  have  grace,  by  which  let  us  serve  God  well-pleas- 
ingly, with  reverence  and  awe. 

The  logical  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  foregoing  expressed 
by:  Wherefore,  is  that  of  admonition  to  the  ground  for  the 
admonition  ;  i.  e.,  Wherefore  let  us  have  grace.  The  ground  is 
expressed  by  :  having  received  a  kingdom  that  cannot  be  shaken. 
But,  as  the  Wherefore  relates  to  the  representation  of  vers.  26, 
27,  the :  having  received,  etc.,  in  some  way  reiterates  the  thought 
of  those  verses.  This  it  does  ;  but  not  as  expressing  that  what 
was  prophesied  has  been  fulfilled  to  us,  and  that  we  have  received 
the  things  that  remain.     Those  that  understand  the :  "  yet  once  " 


Xii.  28.]  LET   us   HAVE   GRACE.  507 

[more]  ver.  27  to  be  interpreted  by  the  Apostle  in  the  sense  that, 
when  heuven  and  earth  are  shaken,  the  tilings  that  are  not  to  be 
shaken  will  remain,  have  a  notion  whose  fulfillment  is  yet  to  be ; 
since,  whatever  heaven  and  earth  are  then  supposed  to  mean,  they 
have  not  yet  been  removed.     They  are  then  obliged  to  under- 
stand our :  having  received  a  kingdom  that  cannot  be  moved,  as 
"  proleptieally  designating  us  as  in  possession  of  that  whose  first 
fruits  and  foretastes  we  do  actually  possess."  ^     But  fia^nhiav 
r.apaka!ii3dvovTt>i  does  not  mean :  beginning  to  receive  a  kingdom, 
any  more  than  Upazeiav  Xa/jpMjurs?  (vii.  5)  means  :  beginning  to 
receive  a  priesthood.     The  Apostle  expresses  that  the  kingdom  is 
a  thing  received.     And  what  he  so  expresses  is  a  reiteration  of 
the  thought  of  vers.  26,  27  in  the  sense  that  this  is  a  thing  that 
cannot  be  shaken  for  which  therefore  those  things  that  are  shaken 
awaited.     Thus  he  calls  it :  a  kingdom  that  cannot  be  shaken. 
That  we  have  this,  is  the  ground  for  the  admonition  k'x(ofiev  ydpcv. 
How  it  is  such  a  ground,  can  only  be  understood  according  as  we 
understand  these  words  to  mean  :  let  us  have  grace,  ^  or  :  "  let  us 
be  thankful."  2     The  latter  rendering  would  be  the  obvious  one 
if  we  could  connect  x^p^'-'  with  »9£cD.     This  might  be  done  were 
the  reading  Xarpsdo/iev  correct.*     But  without  that  dative  that 
usually  appears  with  x»r^',  e^sr^,  the  phrase  is  stiff  as  an  expres- 
sion for  :  let  us  be  thankful.     On  the  other  hand,  in  the  other 
seven   instances   of  the   use   of  x"^pcv  in   our  epistle,  it  means 
"  grace."     Thus  we  are  warranted  in  taking  that  as  its  meaning 
here.     At  iv.  16  the  Author  has  exhorted:  "Let  us  draw  near 
with  boldness  unto  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  receive 
mercy,  and  may  find  grace  to  help  us  in  time  of  need."     At  the 
throne  of  grace  we  are  to  find  grace.     The  grace  that  we  may 
have,  because  we  have  a  kingdom  that  cannot  be  shaken,  must 
be  the  same.     It  is  the  same  as  that  mentioned  ver.  15:  "lest 
any  fail  of  the  grace  of  God."     And  again  xiii.  9  the  Apostle 
says:  "it  is  good  that  the  heart  be  established  by  grace;  not  by 
meats."     Here  he  says  by  the  following  clause  (indirectly)  that 
"by  it  we  serve  God  well  pleasingly."  All  this  makes  it  evident 

1  Alford.  2  Versions  of  1611,  1881,  Stuart. 

'  von  Hof.,  Del.,  Alford,  etc.  *  von  Hof ,  who  defends  it. 


508  OUR   GOD   A   CONSUMING   FIRE.  [xii.  29. 

that  by  grace  the  Apostle  means  something  that  has  been  clearly 
represented  in  the  epistle  as  that  which  characterizes  the  service 
rendered  to  God  by  those  who  receive  the  revelation  of  Christ  and 
receive  Christ  Himself  as  their  high  priest.^  To  those  that 
object  that :  let  us  have,  is  an  unallowable  expression  here,^  we 
may  reply  :  whether  it  is  easier  to  say  :  Let  us  draw  near  with 
our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  (x.  22),  or  to  say : 
let  us  have  grace?  The  relation  of:  "  receiving  a  kingdom  that 
cannot  be  shaken  "  to  "  having  grace,"  denoted  here,  is  indirectly 
through  the  need  of  rendering  appropriate  service.  Having  our 
citizenship  in  a  kingdom  of  God,  we  must  serve  him  well-pleas- 
ingly, and  this,  as  the  epistle  has  shown,  we  can  only  do  by  the 
grace  received  from  the  throne  of  grace  to  which  we  approach 
boldly  through  our  great  high  priest-.^  Thus  the  double  hortatory 
expression  :  let  us  have — let  us  serve,  expresses,  that  acceptable 
service  to  God  is  only  rendered  by  means  of  grace.  The  obverse 
of  this  is,  that  without  this  grace  we  shall  only  serve  God  unac- 
ceptably,  and  consequently  we  shall  find  Him,  not  on  a  throne 
of  grace  but  what  the  following  ver.«e  describes.  Such  is  the 
natural  logical  connection  of  the  following  statement,  denoted  by 
the  for  moreover. 

Ver.  29.  For,  moreover,  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire.  These 
M^ords  are  adopted  from  Deut.  iv.  24.  "  For  the  Lord  thy  God 
is  a  consuming  fire  [even],  a  jealous  God."  And  in  that  chapter 
this  dread  of  God  is  set  over  against  the  graciousness  of  His 
covenant  relation  with  His  people,  as  in  the  Second  Command- 
ment, where  Pie  is  called  a  jealous  God,  shewing  mercy  and  vis- 
iting iniquity.  By  this  brief  word  the  Apostle  sounds  once  more 
the  note  of  alarm  as  first  uttered  in  the  :  "  how  shall  we  escape  " 
(ii.  3),  and,  since  then,  reiterated  again  and  again,  always  in 
alternation  with  representing  the  great  salvation. 

Agreeably  to  the  sentiments  expressed  in  the  Preface  to  this  volume,  we 
give  for  Chapt.  xiii.  of  our  epistle,  tlie  exposition  of  von  Hofmann,  in  a 
translation,  complete  as  he  gives  it  in  his  commentary.  Besides  the  senti- 
ments expressed  in  our  preface,  we  are  moved  to  this  adoption  into  our  own 
volume  of  his  whole  exposition  of  chapt.  xiii.,  because  justice  to  him  would 

*  Comp.  ix  14.  *  e.  g.,  Alford.  '  iv.  14-16. 


Xlii.  1,  2.]  LOVE   OF   THE   BRETHREN.  509 

any  way  necessitate  an  extended  quotation  of  liis  original  exposition  of  vcrees 
10-16.  We  find  it  convincing  and  satisfying,  and  could  only  reproduce  it. 
And  we  may  say  the  same  of  his  exposition  of  verses  20,  21.  For  if,  in  this 
latter  case,  we  do  not  feel  the  same  satisfaction,  we  at  least  prefer  it  to  that  of 
any  other  interpretation,  and  have  nothing  to  set  forth  that  is  more  sati  Hictory 
to  ourselves.  But  as  these  verses  10-16,  20,  21,  comprise  the  most  of  the  chap- 
ter, and  all  that  makes  the  chief  interest  in  its  exposition,  it  is  as  well  to  give 
the  exposition  of  the  whole  in  von  Ilofmann's  words,  and  thus  produce  a  hom- 
ogeneous result.  The  little  we  have  to  say,  by  way  of  addition  or  dissent,  is 
indicated  by  being  put  in  [  ],  except  the  translations  of  the  text  of  chap,  xiii., 
which,  not  being  given  by  von  Hofmann,  are  added,  so  as  to  conform  to  tlie 
rest  of  this  volume.  If  the  suspicion  occurs  to  any  reader  that  our  singular 
expedient  comes  from  indolence,  we  would  represent  that  no  labor  bestowed  on 
the  present  work  has  been  so  difficult  as  the  eflbrt  to  translate  literally,  and 
yet  to  render  into  readable  English,  the  following  exposition,  and  other  trans» 
lations  from  von  Hofmann  that  appear  in  this  volume. 

XIII.  l.Let  love  of  the  brethren  continue.  2.  Forget  not  to  shew 
love  unto  strangers ;  for  thereby,  some  have  entertained  angels 
unawares. 

The  list  of  particular  admonitions  begins  with  love  of  the 
brethren,  as  Christians  should  cherish  and  exercise  it  toward  one 
another.  Let  it  continue,  is  said,  not  so  much  because  it  was 
already  in  existence,  though  vi.  10  proves  that  such  was  the  fact, 
but  rather  because,  as  x.  25  shows,  it  was  in  danger  of  dwindling 
away.  Love  unto  strangers  comes  nearest  to  love  of  the  brethren ; 
it  was  but  the  active  demonstration  of  it  to  those,  who,  as  com- 
panions in  the  faith  from  foreign  parts,  were  entitled  to  fraternal 
reception,  which  they  needed  all  the  more,  seeing  that  their  con- 
fession in  a  strange  locality  made  them  doubly  strangers.  Were 
the  confidence  of  their  Christian  faith  to  flag  in  the  readers,  there 
was  danger  that  they  would  the  less  receive  such  companions  in  the 
faith.  That  the  iiri  irulavM'^eff^'^t  -  forget  not,  is  so  intended,  and 
not  as  recognition  of  their  exercise  of  hospitality,^  appears  from  the 
exhortation  being  fortified  in  the  manner  following,  which  other- 
wise it  would  not  need.  Appeal  is  made  to  Abraham  and  Lot, 
who,  by  showing  hospitality,  received  angels  as  guests  without 
knowing  it.  So  they  also  may  receive  guests  Avho  are  more  and 
something  greater  than  they  appear  to  be,  and  get  a  blessing  for 

'  Against  Kurtz. 


510  REMEMBEE  THOSE   IN   BONDS.  [xiii.  3,  4. 

their  house  that  they  do  not  look  for.  For  the  word  of  the  Lord 
Matt.  XXV.  40,  ["  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  these,  my  breth- 
ren, etc./']  has  no  appKcation  here.^ 

Ver.  3.  Remember  them  that  are  in  bonds  as  bound  with  them ; 
them  that  are  evil  entreated,  as  being  yourselves  also  in  the 
body. 

Just  as  Christians  from  foreign  localities  have,  in  a  special 
respect,  need  of  brotherly  love,  so,  again,  in  another  respect  have 
those  that  suffer  imprisonment,  or  are  otherwise  in  any  sort  of 
distress  on  account  of  their  faith  ; — for  the  reference  can  only  be 
to  prisoners  of  this  sort.^  The  former,  viz.,  those  in  prison,  they 
should  help  as  bound  with  them ;  the  latter,  viz.,  those  in  distress 
as  being  themselves  in  the  body.  As  surely  as  both  these  w?  are 
meant  alike,  so  surely  is  it  erroneous  to  understand  in  the  first 
case  such  a  devotion  as  if  they  themselves  lay  imprisoned,' 
which,  indeed,  would  preclude  their  rendering  aid  ;  in  the  other 
case,  on  the  contrary,  such  a  devotion  as  is  founded  on  the  con- 
sideration that  they  may  encounter  like  distress.  In  both 
instances  must  be  intended  a  consideration  that  should  become  a 
motive  to  action  in  them.  They  must  be  actually  in  the  same 
bonds,  as  they  are  in  the  same  bodily  life.  They  are  not  the 
former,  however,  by  means  of  the  fetters  that  men  have  laid  on 
those  in  prison,  but  by  means  of  those  that  the  Lord  has  laid 
on  themselves.  It  is  as  those  that  have  been  bound  by  the 
Lord,  that  those  owing  sympathy  to  imprisoned  Christians  are 
ffuvdeSerjJvot -hound  with,  them;  thus  it  is  in  the  same  sense  as 
Paul  uses  the  expression  <TuyatyiJ.dXiuTn<;  -  "  fellow-prisoner."  *  Thus 
the  readers  are  to  help  the  one  as  fellow-Christiaus,  the  others  as 
fellowmen. 

The  latter  makes  the  transition  to  what  follows.  The  admo- 
nitions, so  far  as  now  given,  have  been  directed  to  relations  within 
the  Christian  communion ;  what  follows,  which  as  to  form 
recalls  Rom.  xii.  9  sqq.  has  respect  to  conduct  in  the  relations  of 
natural  life. 

Ver.  4.  [Let]  Marriage  [be]  had  in  honor  among  all,  and  [let] 

^  Against  Liin.,  et  al.  '  Against  Kurtz. 

'  So,  e.  g.,  Bleek,  Tholuck,  Del.,  Liin.  *  Comp.  Kom.  xvi.  7. 


xiii.  5,  6.]  WHAT  SHALL  MAN   DO   UNTO   ME?  511 

the  bed  be  undefiled ;  for  fornicators  and  adulterers  will  God 
judge. 

This  treats  of  the  marriage  relation.  It  is  a  groundless 
assumption  that  both  clauses  say  the  same  thing.  And  to  con- 
strue h  Tzdffiv  as  neuter,  is  not  justified  by  pjissages  M'here  it 
means  :  "  in  all  things,"  ^  because  then  here  it  must  rather  signify  : 
"in  every  way."^  If  we  take  it  as  masculine,  we  may  compare 
the  tv  iiini  1  Cor.  xiv.  11,  and  the  meaning  is,  marriage  shall  be 
held  in  honor  by  all,  in  the  eyes  of  all,  both  by  those  that  are 
married,  and  also  by  those  that  for  their  persons  suppose  they 
must  refuse  to  be  married.  That  the  latter  may  not  be  supposed 
to  occur  among  born  Jews,^  is  only  correct,  if  it  appears  impos- 
sible that,  of  the  Essenes  in  Palestine  and  Syria^  who  contemned 
marriage,  any  had  joined  the  Christian  congregations.  Still  the 
sentence  concerns  also  such  as  in  general  lived  unmarried ;  else 
the  Apostle  would  likely  add  only  the  warning  :  adulterers,  and 
not :  fornicators  and  adulterers  will  God  judge. 

Ver.  5.  Be  ye  free  from  the  love  of  money,  content  with  such 
things  as  ye  have.  For  himself  hath  said :  I  wiU  in  no  wise  fail 
thee,  neither  will  I  in  anywise  forsake  thee.  6.  So  that  with  good 
courage  we  may  say :  The  Lord  is  my  helper  I  wiU  not  fear ;  what 
shall  man  do  unto  me  ? 

As  to  what  concerns  a- life  of  gain,  they  must  hold  themselves 
free  from  the  love  of  money,  to  which  the  connecting  participial 
clause,  as  a  nearer  definition,  adds  something  without  which  they 
would  fall  into  that.  For,  whoever  is  not  content  with  what  he 
has,  must  lay  himself  out  to  get  money  that  he  may  be  pro\ided 
beyond  the  present  requirements.  How  ill  would  this  become 
us  who  know  that  he,  he  himself  (as  the  emphatic  a/V«s"  expresses, 
or  it  would  not  be  there,  thus  that  God  in  contrast  with  men 
who  are,  of  course,  not  to  be  trusted),  has  promised  not  to  neglect 
us  !  For  we  should  take  to  ourselves  what  Jehovah  promised 
to  Joshua,  as  He  said  to  him  :  "  I  will  not  fail  thee,  nor  forsake 
thee."^     In  the  LXX.,  these  words  are  rendered  :  ovx  ij'xara?.£i(/>(o 

»  As  Phil.  iv.  12 ;  Tit.  ii.  9  sq.    1  Tim.  ill.  11 ;   2  Tim.  iv.  5. 

^  Against  Bleek,  de  Wette,  Del.,  Liin.,  Maier.  '  ^'o  Liin. 

*Philo.  quod  omn.  prob.  Lib.  §  12.  ^  Josh.  i.  5. 


512  EEMEMBER   YOUK   RULERS.  [xiii.  7. 

at  oud'  ^Ttepoi/'ofxai  ae.  But  the  Apostle  knows  that  they  are  the 
same  words  wherewith  Moses  assured  Joshua,^  or  even  David 
Solomon/  of  Jehovah's  helpful  assistance,  and  that  in  those 
places  they  are  rendered  in  a  way  that  better  corresponds  to  the 

original  text :  once  :  oots  /irj  as.  avrj  uore  /li  as  ^yxaraXcTzrj,  and  oux 
dvTJasi  as  ouds  fiij  as  ky^araXinrj  ;  the  other  time  ubx  avrjasc  as  xai  ob 
[iTj  tyxaraU-rj.  Tliis  customary  rendering  of  the  verbs  '13  ix  and 
^3r;.'N,  as  it  thus  appears  to  be,  the  Apostle  follows.  That  the 
same  words  exactly  are  found  in  Philo^  cannot  therefore  surprise 
one,  and  can  the  less  surprise  one  the  more  simply  and  naturally 
this  rendering  of  the  few  words  follows  the  original  text.  There 
is  no  need  of  any  other  explanation  of  this  occurrence  ;*  least  of 
all,  of  that  incredible  one,  that  regards  the  Apostle's  citation  as 
determined  by  the  form  in  which  he  read  it  in  Philo.*  Did  the 
Apostle  mean  only  to  exhort  to  contentment,  he  would  not  pro- 
ceed as  he  does.  For  when  he  says  the  promise  of  God,  not  to 
forsake  us,  makes  us  boldly  say  what  is  written  Ps.  cxviii.  6  : 
The  Lord  is  for  me ;  I  will  not  fear ;  what  can  man  do  unto  me  ? 
this  saying,  indeed,  much  transcends  what  may  suit  for  an 
expression  of  quiet  contentment  in  God.  But  we  remember  that 
X.  34,  be  spoke  of  the  damage  to  property  and  goods  that  the 
readers  had  incurred  an  account  of  their  confession.  The  like 
can  happen  to  them  also  again,  and  they  must  be  prepared  for  it, 
without  becoming  dispirited  on  that  account.  Hence,^  he  tells 
them : 

Ver.  7.  Remember  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  which 
spake  unto  you  the  word  of  God ;  and  considering  the  issue  of  their 
way  of  living,  imitate  their  faith. 

The  relative  clause  :  which  spake  unto  you  the  word  of  God, 
designates  ^  the  rulers  here  referred  to  as  those  from  whose  mouth 
they  learned  ^  the  word  of  God  that  is  now  published  to  the 
world,  and,  in  fact,  first  learned  \i?  Fur  only  when  so  intended 
does  he  adequately  designate  them,  so  that  the  readers  can  know 

*  Deut.  xxxi.  6,  8.  ^l  Chr.  xxviii.  20.  '  de  confus.  ling.  ?  32. 

*  Against  Del. ;  as  against  Boehme.  '  So  Bleek. 

*  Comp.  Del.  ''  Comp.  Liin. 

^  Comp.  Acts  viii.  25 ;  xiii.  46.  '  Comp.  Boehme,  Bleek,  Liin. 


I 


xiil.  8.]  JESUS   CHRIST   THE   SAME    FOREVER.  513 

whom  they  are  to  remember.  But  he  would  not  so  express  him- 
self were  he  writing  to  Christians  of  Jerusalem  or  Palestine,  from 
whom  the  word  of  God  went  foilh  [?].  To  those  to  whom  he 
wrote  came  preachers  of  the  gospel  from  elsewhere,  who  then 
presided  over  the  churches  they  gathered.  How  these  are  to  be 
remembered  is  expressal  by  the  relative  clause,  which  we  must 
express  demonstratively,  and  which  connects  with  twv  rjauixivajv 
o!j.u)',  defined  as  this  is  by  :  "  who  spake  to  you  the  w^ord  of  God." 
The  issue  of  their  life^  is  what  they  are  to  contemplate,^  that  they 
may  thereby  be  fired  to  imitate  their  faith.  That  they  died  as 
martyrs  can  by  no  means  be  deemed  certain,^  inasmuch  as  their 
end,  if  they  only  blessedly  died  in  the  faith  that  they  had 
preached,  was  in  any  case  fitted  to  encourage  others  to  a  life  of 
faith  whose  end  would  be  like  their  own.  To  die  thus,  one 
might  readily  and  with  joyous  courage  endure  every  hardship 
that  one  suffered  for  Christ's  sake. 

The  Apostle  has  recalled  a  time  that  is  past,  the  time  when 
the  word  of  God  was  brought  to  the  readers  by  those  that  are 
now  dead  and  gone.  He  is  to  be  understood  as  speaking  from 
that  time  when  he  proceeds  with  : 

Ver.  8.  Jesus  Christ  [is]  the  same  yesterday  and  to-day  [yea] 
and  forever. 

The  yesterday  is  the  time  past  that  is  behind  us ;  the  to-day 
the  present  in  which  we  stand.  As  now  the  readers,  if  they  look 
back,  encounter  their  teachers  from  whom  they  then  received  the 
word  of  God,  and  who  now  are  no  more  among  the  living,  they 
have  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  one  exalted  to  God,''  Him  who  is  ever 
alike  and  the  same ;  He  is  now^  the  same  that  He  was  when  He 
was  preached  to  them,  and  remains  so  everlastingly.  What  He 
is,  however,  that  He  should  be  to  them  ;  not  now  another  than 
then  when  they  became  believers  on  Him.  In  that  case  also 
the  doctrine  to  which  they  should  hold  is  the  same  by  which 
they  were  converted  to  Him.  Therefore  the  Apostle  continues  : 
Ver.  9  a.  Be  not  carried  away  by  divers  and  strange  doctrines ; 
for  it  is  good  that  the  heart  be  established  by  grace. 

^  1  Cor.  X.  13.  'Comp.  Acts  xvii.  23. 

8  Against  Lun.  4  Comp.  Del. 

33 


514  GRACE   ESTABLISHES   THE   HEART.  [xiii.  9. 

They  ought  not  to  let  themselves  be  forced  away  from  their 
position  and  driven  into  a  false  way  by  a  motley  variety  of  doc- 
trines opposed  to  the  one  that  has  Christ  for  its  contents,  nor  by 
strange  teachers  that  have  nothing  in  common  with  that  doctrine, 
and  come  from  other  quarters.  For,  that  the  reading  7:spi<fip£(7>^£ 
is  derived  from  Ephes.  iv.  14,  and  that  wearetoread7ra/>a^^/>£(7?9e^ 
can  hardly  be  doubted.  As  for  the  sort  of  motley  doctrines 
opposed  to  Christian  truth  here  intended,  it  is  usuaP  to  infer 
them  from  the  following :  not  by  meats,  etc.,  that  gives  the 
ground  for  the  present  admonition,  and  in  this  fashion,  viz.,  that 
this  clause  is  in  advance  taken  as  pointing  a  contrast  between 
grace  and  meats.  But  this  cannot  be  the  Apostle's  meaning. 
Having  just  said  :  be  not  carried  away,  the  emphasis  must  rest 
on  ^ej3au)u<T>^ac  -  to  be  established,^  and  he  means  to  say,  it  is 
right  and  good,  it  is  proper  that  there,  M^here  grace  reigns, 
the  heart  should  become  settled  in  itself,  instead  of  yielding  to 
every  impression  coming  from  anywhere.  Grace  is  meant  in 
antithesis  to  the  law,  imder  which,  of  course,  the  heart  can  attain 
to  no  steadfastness. 

Ver.  9  6.  Not  by  meats,  wherein  they  that  walked  were  not 
profited. 

This  in  a  fresh  turn  of  thought,  following  the  foregoing  sen- 
tence which  is  first  of  all  concluded  in  itself.  For  the  Apostle 
writes  :  ob  j3f/u)/m(Tiv  and  not  za't  ou  jSpw/mfTr^,  now  by  this  antithesis 
emphasizing  ;^a/3jTc  and  excluding  a  fashion  in  which  the  heart 
may  wish  to  be  established.  So  that  one  cannot  derive  from  this 
what  sort  of  doctrines  he  meant  by :  "  divers  and  strange  doc- 
trines." It  would  be  no  right  establishing  of  the  heart,  were  one 
to  acquire  inward  assurance  that  he  is  in  the  right  condition  by 
what  he  allows  to  be  his  food.  The  present  does  not  treat  of 
being  just  before  God  any  more  than  the  foregoing  that  contrasts 
"  being  established  "  with  "  being  carried  away."  What  is  treated 
of  is  the  confidence  that  one  is  doing  right,  as  in  the  foregoing  it 
was  the  confidence  of  having  the  right  doctrine.  It  is  impossible 
to  suppose  *  that  the  Apostle  refers  to  sacrificial  meals,  because  it 

*  Jude  12.  ^  Comp.  Liin.  '  Comp.  de  Wette,  Delitzsch. 

*  As,  e.  g.,  Bleek,  de  Wette,  Liin.,  also  Kurtz. 


xiii.  10.]  WE   HAVE   AN   ALTAK.  615 

would  not  be  those,  but  the  sacrifices  themselves  that  would  give 
one  the  self-assurance.  Least  of  all,  then,  can  the  thank  ollcrings 
be  meant,  with  which  alone  were  connected  meals  eaten  by  those 
presenting  the  offerings.  The  expression  :  by  meats  requires  one 
to  think  of  the  nature  of  what  one  allows  himself  for  food,  and 
not  of  an  eating  that  was  commanded  in  contrast  with  the  omission 
to  eat ;  whence,  also,  the  eating  of  the  Passover  is  excluded.  What 
one  eats  must  in  his  eyes  be  of  such  a  nature,  that  he  may  sup- 
pose himself  in  that  respect  to  be  in  a  right  condition.  He  uses 
only  clean  food,  viz.,  such  as  the  law  does  not  forbid,  and  that 
has  not  been  made  unclean  by  heathen  hands,  and  he  regards  his 
carefulness  to  taste  nothing  that  a  Jew  ought  not  to  taste  as  some- 
thing that  gives  him  the  assurance  that  he  is  in  the  right  condi- 
tion of  life,  because  thereby  he  proves  that  he  belongs  to  the  Jew- 
ish nation.  As  in  both  instances  it  has  to  do  with  the  cleanness 
of  food,  there  is  no  force  in  the  objection,^  that  an  establishing 
of  the  heart  is  aimed  at,  not  by  means  of  food  itself,  but  by  avoiding 
unclean  food.  That  the  use  of  food  in  general  is  the  matter  treated 
of  here,  appears  also  in  what  follows  :  wherein  they  that  walked 
were  not  profited,  where  Trsptnareiv  ev  zv^t  ^  can  only  be  meant  of 
the  manner  of  daily  life.^  Of  such,  who  so  lived  that  they  were 
always  mindful  to  eat  clean  food,  the  Apostle  says,  that  they  have 
no  profit  from  that.  As  this  is  true  of  Jews  in  general,  there  is 
no  need  to  think  of  abstinence  such  as  is  described  Rom.  xiv.  as 
a  weakness  that  is  to  be  tolerated,  or  Col.  ii.  as  un-Christian 
legalism. 

And  that  we  are  to  think  of  the  universal  Jewish  carefulness 
about  clean  food,  and  not  also  of  super-legal  ascetic  choiceness  in 
food,*  appears  from  what  follows,  which,  following  without  a 
connecting  particle,  obviously  offers  an  independent  yet  kin- 
dred thought  to  that  which  the  Apostle  has  just  said. 

Yer.  10.  We  have  an  altar,  whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat 
which  serve  the  tabernacle. 

As  regards  the  writing  of  the  sentence,  i^outriay  afler  k'/nu(rtv  is 
abundantly  certified  by  external  evidence ;  and  that  it  was  inad- 

1  Of,  e.  (J.,  Bleek,  Lun.  '  Eplies.  ii.  2,  10. 

*  Comp.  Boehme.  *  Against  Del. 


516  A   NEW   INTERPRETATION  [xiii.  10. 

vertently  omitted  is  easily  explained  by  the  similarity  of  the  two 
words.  Thus  it  says  :  those  serving  the  tabernacle  have  no  right 
to  eat  of  the  altar  that  we  have.     The  expression :  ol  rj  (txtjv^ 

Xarpzuovzea  recalls  :  ol  XetroopYouvTe<i  TtS  &U(Tca<TTi^pi(i}  as  n3ITp  "'ri'jtj'p 

was  translated,  or  :  ol  Xsir.  d^uffiaaz-qpiu}  xvpioo,  as  njrr' "'rnj'D^  was 
rendered,  where,  regarding  the  latter,  it  may  not  be  said  that  the 
rendering  was  due  only  to  perplexity.'  Our  expression  more 
readily  recalls  :  ol  hirouyoovre'i  r<Zi  olxw,  the  rendering  of  '07^^  * 
^'3n.  Finally  it  recalls,  that,  viii.  5,  it  was  said  of  the  legal  priests : 

o7r{V£9  onodeiyiiari  xai  fTxca   Xarpeuouffcv   rwv   iTzuupavcwv.       Hence     it 

cannot  be  deemed  extraordinary  that  the  Apostle  writes  <n'  rfj  <rx7jvr, 
and  not  ol  h  r^  (^xr/v^  Xazpeuovrea  ]  ®  nor  can  one,  (least  of  all  be- 
cause it  reads  karpeuovTef;,  and  not  Xstroupyouvrs';^,^  detect  in  the 
designation  something  contemptuous,  or  even  a  reference  to  idol- 
atry.'' Did  our  expression  occur  in  an  Old  Testament  context, 
it  would  be  simply  a  designation  of  the  priests.  But  after  reading, 
as  we  have  done,  in  chaps,  viii.  ix.,  how  the  tabernacle  of  the 
law  was  contrasted  with  that  of  the  New  Testament,  we  cannot 
believe  that  in  this  sentence,  that  treats  of  us  Christians,  the  Jew- 
ish priests  are  simply  called  :  those  serving  the  tabernacle.  And 
what  would  be  said  of  them  ?  The  legal  priests  were  entitled  to 
appropriate  for  themselves  certain  parts  of  the  sacrifices  offered 
through  them,  and  to  use  them  for  their  support.  When  they  did 
that,  it  was  not  a  part  of  their  priestly  service,  as  has  been  com- 
monly affirmed  in  consequence  only  of  a  misunderstanding  of 
Lev.  X.  17,^  but  acceptance  of  the  corporeal  wages  that  they  drew 
from  it.  But  in  our  context  it  would  say  of  Christians,  that 
they  have  an  altar,  of  which  the  Jewish  priests  were  not  entitled 
to  derive  anything  for  their  corporeal  support.  Of  course,  no  one 
so  understands  it ;  but  it  is  explained  as  saying,  that  they  cannot 
attain  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  spiritual  goods  that  result  to  be- 
lievers from  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.'     But  what  right  has 

1  Joel  i.  13.  '^  Joel  i.  9.  '  Against  Del. 

*  Ezek.  xliv.  11 ;  xlv.  5 ;  xlvi.  24.  *  Against  Bengel. 

®  Comp.,  e.  g.,  Heb.  ix.  6.  ''  Against  Del. 

®  Keil.,  Handbuch  der  bibl.  Archceologie,  I.,  p.  235 ;  comp.  on  the  contrary,  Mj 
Schriftbeweis,  II.  1,  p.  281 ;  Kurtz,  d.  alttesL  Opfercultus ;  Del.  '  So  Liin. 


xiii.  10.]  BY   VON   HOFMANN.  517 

one  so  to  explain  ?  Was  then  the  eating  of  the  pieces  of  the  sac- 
rifices that  fell  to  the  priests  an  enjoyment  of  the  spiritual  goods 
that  resulted  from  the  sacrifices  for  those  that  sacrificed  or  for  the 
congregation?  And  allowing  the  explanation  permissible,  why 
should  such  be  said  just  of  the  priests  of  the  Jewish  people,  and 
not  of  non-Christian  Jews  in  general  ?  It  has  been  declared  that 
the  members  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  general  are  meant.*  But 
what  right  has  one  to  interpret  the  expression  so,  in  conflict  with 
the  passages  of  the  LXX  quoted  above,  and  of  the  epistle  itself? 
Or  some  have  paraphrased :  the  congregation  of  the  law,  and 
even  their  priests  were  not  entitled  to  this.^  But  it  does  not  say 
this.  Yet  did  it  mean  the  non-Christian  Jews  in  general,  or 
their  priests ;  neither  one  nor  the  other  craved  the  benefits  result- 
ing from  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.  What  does  it  amount 
to,  then,  to  say,  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  them  ?  Finally,  our 
expression  would,  in  fact,  apply  to  the  Jews,  or  to  the  Jewish 
priests  of  the  present  time,  (who  could  by  no  means  be  desig- 
nated as  "those  serving  the  tabernacle"),  who,  as  withdrawn 
from  the  law,  would  be  comprehended  by  the  effect  of  redemptive 
history  as  being  so  entitled,  while  the  Jews  that  kept  aloof  from 
the  church  of  Jesus  were  not. 

In  one  and  the  same  sentence  altar  and  tabernacle  are  men- 
tioned without  the  tabernacle  being  distinguished  as  one  that  is 
different  from  the  tabernacle  of  the  altar.  Hence  we  must  sup- 
pose that  both  belong  to  the  same  sphere  of  redemptive  history ; 
that  we  Christians  have-  the  tabernacle  that  is  served,  quite  as 
much  as  we  have  the  altar  on  which  its  sacrifice  is  offered. 
What,  then,  is  this  altar  ?  Some  say  :  the  cross  on  Golgotha  ;  ^ 
others  say,  that  it  is  the  table  of  the  Lord's  Supper.^  Our  sac- 
rifice took  place  on  Golgotha,  but  we  have  not  that  cross,  nor  the 
place  where  it  stood,  but  only  Him  who  was  the  sacrifice.  There- 
fore, it  cannot  be  properly  said  of  the  cross  of  Christ  that  we 
have  it,  as  the  Jew  had  his  altar.  The  table  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  we  have,  but  it  is  no  altar  like  that  of  the  legal  sanctu- 
ary ;  the  sacrifice,  to  be  spoken  of  immediately,  did  not  take 

'  80  Liin.  2  go  jy^i  3  go^  g  ^_^  Biegjj^  Liin.^  Del.,  [Alford.] 

*  So,  e.  g.,  Boehme,  Ebrard,  Maier,  Bisping. 


618  OUR  ALTAR   OFFERS   NO   WA.GE,  [xiii.  11. 

place  on  it  once  for  all.  Accordingly,  it  is  no  mere  whim/ 
when  one  refuses  to  designate  just  anything  ^  as  intended  by  altax, 
and  understands,  instead,  in  a  New  Testament  way  the  expres- 
sion :  we  have  an  altar.  The  term  is  brought  from  the  Old 
Testament  sphere,  but  deals  here  with  the  manner  in  which  we 
have  received  the  expiation  of  our  sins.  Keeping  within  the 
sphere  of  representation  that  this  altar,  so  intended,  brings  with 
it,  we  have  it  said,  that  the  servants  of  God's  house  are  not  en- 
titled to  eat  from  that  altar.  If  it  were  said  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment church,  they  have  an  altar  from  which  the  servants  of  the 
tabernacle  are  entitled  to  eat,  it  would  be  understood,  of  course, 
that  the  tabernacle  is  meant  to  which  the  altar  belongs.  How, 
then,  here,  where  the  New  Testament  church  has  the  altar  in 
question,  should  the  tabernacle  not  likewise  be  that  of  the  New 
Testament  ?  But  as  this  church  has  not,  like  the  Old  Testament 
church,  a  priesthood  to  whom  exclusively  belongs  the  service  of 
God's  house,  because  it  is  itself  the  house  of  God,  so  the  subject 
of :  we  have  cannot  be  different  from  :  those  that  serve  the  taber- 
nacle, in  any  other  sense  than  that  the  latter  designate  the  New 
Testament  church  as  the  counterpart  of  the  legal  priesthood.^ 
And  it  is  so  designated,  because  of  its  priestly  doing,  its  divine 
service,  should  be  said  (for  the  reason  to  be  given  directly),  it 
gives  to  this  priesthood  no  title  to  wages  that  may  be  compared 
to  the  wages  the  legal  priests  took  from  their  altar. 

Ver.  1 1 .  For  the  bodies  of  those  beasts,  whose  blood  is  brought 
into  the  holy  place  by  the  high  priest  for  sin,  are  burned  without 
the  camp. 

When  the  high  priest  goes  before  God  with  sacrificial  blood  to 
expiate  sins  (for  such  sacrifice  is  meant,  whether  Tztp\  d/xaprcag  be 
genuine  or  not),  he  burns  the  beast,  whose  blood  he  uses,  outside 
of  the  camp.  The  Apostle  uses  the  present  dfffipsrat  and  xara- 
xsterac,  as  he  does  slffcaffiv,  ix.  6,  expressing  himself  in  the  words 
of  the  prescription  of  the  law,  and  meaning  a  continuing  occur- 
rence as  written  in  the  law.  Three  cases  of  such  expiation  were 
prescribed,  viz.,  when  the  high  priest  had  committed  a  sin  that 

1  Against  Del.  "^  [Comp.  in  Lindsay.] 

'  Comp.  My  Schrifibewds,  II.  1,  p.,  458  sq.,  and  Kurtz. 


xiii.  11.]        BUT   ONLY   MEANS   OF   SANCTIFICATION.  519 

affected  the  whole  congregation  (Lev.  iv.  12),  when  sin  harl  been 
committed  that  comprehended  the  entire  congregation  (Lev. 
iv.  21) ;  the  yearly  atonement  that  was  both  for  the  priesthood 
and  the  congregation  (Lev.  xvi.  27).  In  all  these  instances  the 
officiating  priest  himself  was  concerned  in  the  expiation  for  which 
he  sacrificed,  and  even  when  he,  every  year  on  the  day  of  atone- 
ment, sacrificed  the  sin-offering  for  the  congregation  ; '  otherwise, 
how  could  he  have  been  priest  of  God  for  Israel,  if  the  congre- 
gation remained  in  their  sins  ?  Hence,  also,  in  these  cases,  he  had 
no  wages  appointed  for  his  service  in  sacrificing.  The  beast  that 
was  sacrificed  had  no  other  designation  than  that  which  was  ac- 
complished by  the  use  of  its  blood.  Therefore  it  must,  as  was  the 
case,  be  wholly  destroyed  by  fire,  and  that  outside  of  the  camp ;  not 
because  it  was  unclean,  as  charged  with  imputed  sins,^  but  in 
token  that  only  the  use  of  its  blood  pertained  to  the  congregation. 
What  did  not  come  into  the  sanctuary,'  must  also  not  remain 
within  its  precincts,  not  even  in  its  destruction,  because  the  beast 
was  appointed  purely  for  the  expiation  of  the  sins  of  the  people, 
and  what  further  happened  to  it  was  only  for  the  purpose  of 
making  evident  this,  its  exclusive  destination.  Were  it  said, 
then,  in  our  ver.  10,  that  non-Christian  Jews  or  their  priesthood 
have  no  part  in  what  is  given  to  us  through  the  self-sacrifice  of 
Christ,  what  connection  with  this  would  that  prescription  of  the 
law  have  ?  It  is  said,  that  as  the  priests  of  the  law  dared  not  eat 
of  that  holiest  sin-offering,  so  they  have  no  title  to  eat  of  the 
antitypical  sin-offering  of  our  altar ;  and  this  correspondence  is 

^  Against  Del.  ^  Comp.  against  this  My  Schriftbeweis,  II.  1,  p.  255. 

'  [Here  it  is  common  to  remark  on  to,  dyia-ihe  holy  place,  that,  "as  at  ix. 
8,  12,  24,  25  and  x.  9,  it  probably  means,  not  the  Holy  place  properly  so  called, 
but  the  Holy  of  Holies,  in  which  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  M'as  brought  on 
the  day  of  atonement,  and  which  only  typified  heaven,  whither  Christ,  as  High 
Priest,  is  entered  with  His  blood,"  Alford,  so  Del.,  etc.  This,  the  final  men- 
tion of  TO.  ayia  in  this  epistle,  harmonizes  with  all  we  have  represented  against 
the  above  interpretation  (comp.  at  the  texts  cited),  when  we  notice  that : 
the  blood  brought  into  the  holy  place  by  the  high  priest,  suflJiciently  describes 
the  sacrifice  intended,  without  tlie  Holy  of  Holies  needing  to  l)e  mentioned. 
None  but  the  high  priest  oflTererl  that  sacrifice,  and  what  the  high  priest  offered 
was  none  other  than  that  sacrifice;  and  when  he  entered  the  Holy  place  with 
that,  as  he  must  to  enter  the  Holy  of  Holies,  no  other  went  with  him.] 


520  JESUS   SUFFERED   WITHOUT  THE   GATE        [xiii.  12. 

declared  to  be  clear  as  the  sun.^  But  in  that  case,  the  reason 
why  they  dared  not  eat  of  the  one  and  of  the  other  must  as  much 
correspond  as  that  sin-offering  corresponds  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
But  that  is  as  little  the  fact,  as  that  our  eating  and  drinking  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  (which  is  supposed  to  be  the  thing  allowed 
us  but  denied  to  those  that  serve  the  tabernacle)  corresponds 
to  the  priestly  eating  of  the  sin-offering.  If  it  were  meant,  that 
we  may  do  what  the  others  may  not  to  do,  viz.,  eat  from  our 
altar,  how  would  it  serve  for  confirmation  that  the  latter  may  not 
eat,  to  appeal  to  that  high-priestly  sacrifice  of  which  nothing 
whatever  was  to  be  eaten  ?  This  ordinance  of  the  law  must  have 
its  counterpart  only  in  a  like  thing  that  obtains  with  respect  to 
the  only  sacrifice  of  our  altar,  viz.,  the  high-priestly  sacrifice  of 
Jesus.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  correctly  understood,  that 
we  Christians,  who  have  no  other  sacrifice  than  that  of  Christ, 
are  not  entitled  to  any  wages  for  our  temporal  life  derived  from 
it,  such  as  the  legal  priests  were  entitled  to  from  the  beasts  they 
sacrificed,  then  the  confirmation  of  ver.  10,  consists  in  an  appeal 
[ver.  1 1]  to  the  prescription  of  the  law,  typical  for  this  case,  that  the 
high-priestly  sacrifice  concerned  expiation  exclusively,  and  the 
priests  had  not,  as  in  other  sacrifices,  emolument  therefrom  for  their 
sustenance.  By  this  we  are  taught  that  we  should  simply  ap- 
propriate the  expiation  of  our  sins  that  is  accomplished  by  the 
high-priestly  sacrifice  of  Jesus,  and  not  expect  that  we  are  to  reap 
earthly  advantage  from  the  fact  that  we  are  Christians. 

Ver.  12.  Wherefore  Jesus  also,  that  he  might  sanctify  the 
people  through  his  own  blood,  suffered  without  the  gate. 

The  wherefore  refers  to  the  thought  expressed  in  that  ordi- 
nance, as  to  a  law  of  the  history  of  salvation.  By  a  xai  =  also, 
that  refers  to  the  whole  sentence,  not  merely  because  the  subject, 
but  also  because  its  predicate  differs  from  those  foregoing,  the 
two  cases  are  designated  as  corresponding  to  one  another  and  of 
like  character.  But  they  differ  in  this,  that  Jesus  has  sanctified 
the  people  through  his  own  blood,  ^  whereas  theHB  the  high  priest 
went  before  God  with  other  blood  than  his  own  ;  moreover,  in  this, 
that  he  was  not  liimself  guilty  as  those  were  for  whose  sake  he 

1  So  Del.  *  Comp.  u.  17. 


xiii.  12.]  THAT   HE   MIGHT  SANCTIFY    US.  521 

offered  himself  a  sacrifice ;  and  finally  in  this,  that  with  liini  all 
coincided  in  one  in  his  suffering  death ;  whereas,  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament counterpart,  the  sacrificing  of  the  beast  and  its  burning  were 
distinguished,  and  belonged  to  contrasted  localities.  But  the 
unity  of  the  two  transactions  is  in  this,  that  the  sauctification  of 
the  people  took  place  in  a  fashion  that  denoted  that  the  people 
were  to  have  nothing  else  from  it  but  just  their  sauctification. 
For  it  took  place  by  the  suffering  of  the  sanctifier,  especially  in 
suffering  death  without  the  gate.  He  did  not  suffer  w^ith  his 
people  what  befell  him,  but  he  suffered  as  one  thrust  out  of  their 
city,  and  by  them  held  deserving  of  and  given  up  to  that  which 
befell  him.  A  sauctification  of  the  people  so  accomplished  ex- 
cluded every  thought,  as  if,  beside  the  benefit  of  being  sanctified 
thereby,  it  offered  also  temporal  and  earthly  advantage  among 
the  people  that  had  thrust  him  from  them  to  such  a  death. 

The  connection  between  verses  11  and  12  expressed  by: 
"  Wherefore,"  has  been  understood  to  indicate  rather,  that  those 
who  persevere  in  holding  to  the  nation  and  the  law  of  the  Old 
Covenant  partake  as  little  in  the  death  of  Jesus  as  of  the  flesh 
of  the  high-priestly  sacrifice  that  was  to  be  burned  outside  of  the 
camp.^  But  the  reason  for  not  partaking  of  the  latter  was  not 
that  one  belonged  to  the  nation  and  law  of  the  Old  Covenant ; 
and  what  is  discoursed  of  is  not  those  that  have  no  part  in  Jesus' 
death ;  but  of  Him  it  is  said  why  He  suffered  without  the  gate. 
Again  some  lay  stress  on  this,  that  thrusting  out  the  bodies  of 
those  sacrificial  beasts,  that  were  excluded  from  the  theocratic 
communion  of  the  Jewish  nation,  must  have  been  the  symbolic 
counterpart  of  the  exclusion  of  the  sacrificial  body  of  Jesus  from 
the  Jewish  covenant  people.^  But  conceding  the  correctness  of  the 
underlying  significance  there  ascribed  to  the  burning  without  the 
camp  (which  is  as  far  from  being  correct,^  as  it  is  to  call  that  fire, 
the  fire  of  God's  wrath,  as  if  it  were  fire  of  an  altar),^  then  the 
exclusion  from  the  Old  Testament  people  of  God  would  have  for 
its  correlative,  exclusion  from  the  New  Testament  Church,  and 

'  So,  €.  g.,  Bleek.  ^  So  Lun. 

^  Comp.  Del.,  remark  against  Bahr  in  tlie  Tlieol.  Stud.  u.  Krit  1849,  p. 
936  sqq.  *  As  Riehm — Zusdtze,  p.  xxii. 


522  BODIES   BUENED   WITHOUT  THE   CAMP.         [xiii.  12. 

not  exclusion  from  the  unbelieving  Israel.^  For  this  reason  the 
same  thought  has  been  so  far  modified  as  to  see  in  the  burning 
of  the  body  of  the  sin-offering  without  the  camp  a  partial 
breaking  loose  from  the  legal  sanctuary,  to  which,  in  New  Testa- 
ment fashion,  there  must  be  so  complete  a  correlative,  that  Jesus 
was  not  only  buried  without  the  city,  but  also  was  slain  on  an 
altar  that  was  without  the  legal  sanctuary,  and  appeared  before 
God  with  His  blood,  not  in  the  earthly,  but  in  the  hedvenly  Holy 
of  Holies.^  But  supposing  that  in  that  burning  there  was  implied 
a  partial  renouncing  of  the  legal  sanctuary  (wliich  is  not  the  fact, 
since  to  the  divine  service,  that  was  concluded  by  the  use  made 
of  the  blood,  it  stood  related  as  an  unavoidable  appendage,  that 
did  not  affect  the  performance),  still  the  burial  of  Jesus,  as 
extraneous  to  the  enaf^sv,  does  not  belong  here ;  and  that  the 
renouncing  of  the  legal  sanctuary  would  have  been  less  complete 
had  Jesus  brought  His  blood  before  God  in  its  Holy  of  Holies,  is 
a  thought  that  is  utterly  incapable  of  development.  Of  course, 
it  was  not  only  the  Jewish  nation  that  expelled  Jesus,  but  it  was 
so  ordained  of  God  that  He  should  suffer  death  as  one  cast  out,  and 
that  Israel's  unbelief  redounded  to  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  there  remained  not  the  slightest  pretence,  as  if  Israel  had 
any  superiority  of  which  it  might  boast  before  God.  But  it  does 
not  follow  from  this  that  one  may  say  of  God,  He  renounced  the 
legal  sanctuary  by  permitting  Jesus  to  die  so ;  but  His  forsaking 
and  giving  it  up  was  the  punishment  for  Israel's  behaviour  to 
Jesus.^  Moreover  the  present  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  legal 
sanctuary,  but  witli  the  sphere  of  the  people  of  the  Sinaitic  law. 
Jesus  suffered  death  as  one  excluded  from  them,  the  death  by 
which  He  sanctified  the  Church  ;  so  that  one  could  not  have  the 
benefit  of  His  sanctification  of  the  Church  and  at  the  same  time 
remain  in  the  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  what  a  Jew  had  by  con- 
tinuing to  belong  to  his  nation. 

The  representation  of  ver.  10  was  only  that  the  Christian  must 
not  expect  or  claim  of  his  Christian  condition  that  rests  on  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Jesus,  that  it  will  promote  his  earthly  and 

^  This  also  against  Kielim.  *  So  Kurtz. 

^  Comp.  Matt,  xxiii.  39 ;  Luke  xiii.  35. 


xiii.  13,  14.]     LET  us  bear  Christ's  reproach.  523 

temporal  enjoyment  along  witli  his  participation  in  the  expiatory 
death  of  our  High  Priest.  And  in  vers.  11,  12  tlie  New  Testa- 
ment counterpart  of  that  burning  of  the  legal  high-priestly  sac- 
rifice has  led  to  the  additional  thought,  and  impressed  it  on  the 
readers,  that  the  death  of  Jesus  that  sanctified  the  people,  was 
the  death  of  one  that  was  cast  out  from  His,  the  Jewish  nation. 
Hence  the  exhortation  proceeds  as  in 

Ver.  13.  Let  us  therefore  go  forth  unto  him  without  the  camp, 
bearing  his  reproach. 

This  is,  as  He  bearing  His  cross  went  out  of  the  city,  so  the 
readers  should  depart  out  of  the  legal  congregation  laden  with 
His  reproach.  This  does  not  mean  that  they  are  not  to  seek  sal-, 
vation  within  the  Jewish  communion  ;  ^  but  that  they  should  not 
think  of  participating  in  the  salvation  of  Christ  and  still  remain- 
ing in  the  communion  of  their  nation  in  matters  of  divine  ser- 
vice, seeing  this  could  only  be  at  the  expense  of  their  confession 
of  Him  whose  reproach  they  must  make  their  own.  The  expres- 
sion :  without  the  camp  is  purposely  repeated  in  order  to  desig- 
nate the  sphere  of  the  legal  congregation,  not  the  nationality. 

Ver.  14.  For  we  have  not  here  an  abiding  city,  but  we  seek 
after  [tlie  city]  which  is  to  come. 

Neither  does  this  verse  intimate  that  they  should  cease  to  be 
Jews,  nor  that  they  should  suffer  themselves  to  be  driven  from 
their  cities  by  Jews.^  When  the  Apostle  speaks  here  of  a  city,  he 
means  one  that  comprehends  Christians  as  such  in  a  community 
that  corresponds  to  their  Christian  condition.  Such  a  city,  says 
he,  we  have  not ;  here  below  we  have  none  in  continual  standing. 
That  is,  utd£  belongs  to  iii^^ouaav,  that  wds  iii'Miuaav  may  form  the 
antithesis  of  riiV  iiilloudav,  as  h/oiivj  of  iru'^r^ToiJii^v.  We  have  not 
such  a  city,  but  we  look  longingly  for  it ;  not  one  present  here 
below,  and  thus  continuing  have  we,  but  we  long  for  the  future 
city.  The  Jew  had  in  the  earthly  Jerusalem  the  city  in  which 
for  him  Israel's  relation  to  God  was  embodied.  Christians  have 
nothing  of  the  kind,  and  cannot  therefore  lose  it,  if  they  are 
Jews,  by  giving  up  the  communion  in  divine  service  that  has  its 
seat  in  Jerusalem,  in  order  to  be  wholly  and  exclusively  Christians. 

'  So  Liin.  *  Against  Grotius,  ci  al. 


524  CHRISTIAN  SACRIFICES.  [xiii.  15,  16. 

And  this  the  readers  should  do  ;  thus  they  should  also  give 
up  participating  in  the  sacrificial  service. 

Ver.  15.  Through  him  then  let  us  offer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise 
to  God  continually,  that  is  [the]  fruit  of  lips  which  make  confession 
to  his  name. 

Through  Jesas  who  has  sanctified  them  by  His  sacrifice,  when 
the  legal  nation  excluded  Him,  they  should  sacrifice ;  through 
Him,  not  through  those  who,  according  to  the  law,  are  "  those 
who  serve  the  tabernacle."  A  sacrifice  of  praise  (niin  nnj)  where- 
with one  praises  God  fiar  His  goodness,  and  indeed  a  continual 
sacrifice,  as  dcd  Ttavroa  ix.  6  was  used  fi^r  the  daily  priestly  service, 
such  should  their  sacrifice  to  God  be,  through  Jesus  as  the  media- 
tor of  their  relation  to  God,  and  thus  mediator  of  every  display 
of  it  in  actions ;  that  is  continual  praise  of  His  name,  or,  as 
the  Apostle  expresses  it,  following  the  translation  of  Hos.  xiv.  3, 
fruit  of  lips  confessing  his  name.  This  expression  recalls  on  the 
one  hand  uiJAiXoysiv  h  nvi^  which  is  to  make  a  confession  that  has 
some  one  for  its  contents ;  on  the  other  hand  ofioXoyetaf^fxi  tjvc,  or 
Tc5  6'M'>!mri  rfvo?,  wliich  occurs  as  the  rendering  of  nnin.^  But  it 
differs  from  both,  and  means  making  a  confession  respecting  the 
name  of  God  and  bearing  witness  to  Him. 

Yer.  16.  But  to  do  good  and  to  communicate  forget  not;  for 
with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased. 

To  one  direction,  as  to  how  Christians  are  to  sacrifice,  is  added 
this  other,  which  conjoined  by  8i  =  but,  denotes  that  something 
beside  is  to  be  considered.  Hence  there  is  a  transition  from  the 
first  person  plural  subjunctive  to  the  imperative.  It  is:  doing 
good  and  sharing  with  others.  For  this  and  the  former  the  rea- 
son is  given,  viz.,  that  God  is  well  pleased  with  such  sacrifices,  in 
as  much  as  they  are  genuine  expressions  of  piety,  and  obtain  with 
God  as  such  ;  whereas  the  legal  sacrifices  of  beasts  may  be  offered 
in  a  way  devoid  of  piety.  It  is  hardly  justifiable  to  take  this 
reason  as  relating  only  to  the  second  exhortation,'  seeing  that 
prayerful  praise  of  God  is  expressly  designated  as  a  sacrifice. 

Our  vers.  10-16  follow  ver.  9  without  any  particle  of  transi- 

1  Matt.x.  32 ;  Luke  xii.  8.  ^  e.  g.,  LXX.  Gen.  xxix.  35 ;  Ps.  liv.  8. 

^  So,  e.  g.,  Bleek,  Liin.,  Del. 


xiii.  17.]  RESUME  OF  XIII.  1-16.  525 

tion.  How  do  the  thoughts  they  express  relate  to  wliat  precedes  ? 
In  ver.  9  it  is  said,  that  the  readers  should  not  stablish  their 
hearts  by  meats,  so  as  to  assure  themselves  of  their  being  in  the 
correct  condition.  Did  they  do  so,  they  would  ascril)e  to  hold- 
ing to  clean  things  to  eat  a  value  that  is  incompatible  with  the 
Christian  condition  of  grace,  and  would  prove  that  they  desire 
to  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  nation  which  had  got  no  good 
of  holding  to  clean  things  to  eat,  whereas  their  belonging  to 
Jesus  gives  them  a  share  in  the  sanctification  of  the  people.  His 
high-priestly  sacrifice,  from  which  we  have  this  gain,  leaves  no 
room  for  earthly  advantage  with  which  one  may  provide  himself 
from  it,  but  makes  it  one's  duty  not  to  mind  the  reproach  that 
comes  with  the  communion  of  the  Crucified,  and,  refusing  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  legal  divine  service,  to  bring  the  right  sacrifice. 
Thus  they  are  not  permitted  to  attach  importance  to  clean  meats, 
nor  to  remain  in  the  communion  of  the  legal  sacrificial  service, 
but  their  hearts  should  be  stablished  by  grace  and  their  sacrifices 
should  be  praise  to  God  and  doing  good.  The  transition  from 
ver.  9  to  ver.  10  without  conjunction  puts  the :  not  with  meats 
under  the  point  of  view  of  what  follows,  and  lets  us  understand 
what  proclivity  it  was  in  the  readers  that  occasioned  this  negation. 
It  was  not  a  proclivity  to  righteousness  of  works,  but  a  proclivity 
to  hold  faster  to  the  Jewish  nation  and  its  religious  life  and  ser- 
vices than  their  Christian  condition  permitted. 

In  vers.  1-6  the  Apostle  exhorts  to  conduct  becoming  Chris- 
tians. Then,  vers.  7,  8,  a  reference  to  the  faith  that  departed 
teachers  had  preserved  even  till  death  prepares  the  transition  to 
what  was  to  be  said  to  the  readers  as  confessors  of  Jesus  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Jewish  legal  life,  vers.  9-16.  Now  the  exhortation 
proceeds  to  what  respects  their  behaviour  within  the  Christian 
orsranization. 

Ver.  17.  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit 
[to  them],  for  they  watch  in  behalf  of  your  souls,  as  they  that  shall 
give  account;  that  they  may  do  this  with  joy  and  not  with  grief; 
for  this  [were]  unprofitable  for  you. 

They  should  follow  their  rulers,  and  be  instructed  by  them. 
"What  is  said  in  support  of  this  admonition  implies  that  by  iusub- 


526  PRAY  FOR  US.  [xiii.  18. 

ordination  they  had,  perhaps  not  seldom,  made  the  burdens  of 
their  rulers  needlessly  onerous.  They  hold  a  different  relation 
toward  their  rulers  and  should  pray  for  them. 

Ver.  18.  Pray  for  us;  for  we  are  persuaded  that  we  have  a 
good  conscience,  desiring  to  live  honestly  in  all  things  [or  among 
all]. 

For  in  these  words  the  Apostle  is  not  asking  for  prayer  for 
himself  alone.^  Those  who  suppose  he  does,  appeal  to  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  I  exhort,"  etc.,  where  transition  is  immediately  made 
from  the  first  person  plural  to  the  first  person  singular.^  But 
precisely  the  contrary  is  to  be  inferred.  Up  to  the  present,  the 
Author  has  always  spoken  in  the  first  person  plural  when  he 
would  refer  to  himself  (v.  11  ;  vi.  1,  3,  9, 11).  If,  then,  he  meant 
only  himself  here,  what  influenced  him  just  in  ver.  19  to  change 
to  the  first  person  singular,  which  he  retains  to  the  end  of  the 
epistle  ?  It  is  just  because  he  would  not  have  his  epistle  read  as 
the  utterance  of  his  personal  penetration  or  view,  but  as  the 
expression  of  a  judgment  that  was  shared  by  those  that  were 
known  as  participating  in  his  official  work.  He  lets  his  own 
person  appear  for  the  first  time  at  the  end  ;  and  the  most  natural 
transition  presents  itself  when  he  would  enforce  the  exhortation 
to  intercessory  prayer,  by  making  his  speedy  return  to  them  the 
object  to  be  gained,  that  being  something  that  concerned  his  per- 
sonal relation  to  them. 

What  follows  the  request :  "  pray  for  us,"  as  a  reason  for  it,  is 
commonly  understood,  by  those  taking  the  -sTroO'^afisv  of  the 
Recept.,  in  the  sense  of  "we  are  convinced  ;"  or,  when,  as  is  cor- 
rect,^ one  takes  the  more  difficult  -£j>9o//£i9a,  then  in  the  sense  of 
"we  persuade  ourselves,"  viz.,  that  we  have  a  good  conscience. 
But  one  can  only  have  or  not  have  a  good  conscience.  One  can 
not  be  convinced  that  he  has  it,  or  persuade  himself  that  he  has 
it ;  ^  unless  the  meaning  be  that  one  persuades  himself  and  makes 
himself  believe  so,  when  the  contrary  is  the  fact.  In  addition  to 
this,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  Trsif^strSat  can  mean  what  it  is 
made  to  mean  :  Acts  xxvi.  26,  ou  -eh^ixm  is  equivalent  to:  "I 

^  Comp.  Del.  *  So,  e.  g.,  Bleek,  Liin.,  Kurtz. 

'  Against  Keiche,  comm.  crit.  in  N.  T.,  III.,  p.  147.      *  Comp.,  e.  g.  Boehme. 


xili.  19-21.]  A    GOOD   CONSCIENCE.  527 

will  not  be  convinced."  If,  accordingly  or:  cannot  belong  to 
^:tif^6|ltf^a  as  recitative  of  the  thing  predicated,  it  must  assign  the 
reason  for  a  belief  (for  TzeO^eff^ai  means  "to  believe,"  not  "to 
suppose  "),^  the  contents  of  which  is  to  be  derived  from  what  pre- 
cedes. If  we  believe,  says  the  Apostle,  that  you  pray  for  us,  the 
reason  is  that  we  have  good  conscience,  seeing  it  is  our  will  to 
have  our  conversation  towards  all  ^  as  it  ought  to  be.  He  asks 
that  they  will  pray  for  him  because  his  belief  that  they  will  do  so  has 
this  reason.^  But  still  more,  in  greater  measure  still  ought  they 
so  to  do  (so  says  the  Apostle  now,  for  his  own  person  in  particu- 
lar) that  he  may  so  much  the  sooner  be  restored  to  them.* 

Ver.  19.  And  I  exhort  [you]  the  more  exceedingly  to  do  this, 
that  I  may  be  restored  to  you  the  sooner. 

That  -s:pi(T(Toripu)'}  belongs  to  T<r>Ti>  Tzotr^trai^  is  natural,  seeing 
that  the  particular  object  for  which  they  should  intercede  requires 
a  more  earnest  intercession.  From  the  object  of  prayer  as  here 
proposed,  we  see  that  the  Author  is  no  stranger  to  the  readers. 
He  had  passed  some  time  with  them  before,  and  desires,  and 
means  to  come  to  them  again.  But  his  arrival  depends  on  cir- 
cumstances, so  that  it  may  be  delayed  or  hastened.  Only  so 
much  is  implied  in  the  words,  and  not  that  he  is  a  prisoner,  and 
asks  for  prayers  for  his  release.'' 

And  now  he  concludes  the  epistle  with  a  prayer. 

Ver.  20.  Now  the  God  of  peace,  who  brought  again  from  the 
dead  the  great  shepherd  of  the  sheep,  on  account  of  the  blood 
of  the  eternal  covenant,  even  our  Lord  Jesus,  21  make  you  per- 
fect in  every  good  thing  to  do  his  will,  doing  in  you  that  which  is 

^  Comp.,  e.  g.,  Eurip.,  Hippol.,  1241.  ''Against  Liin. 

»  Comp.  2  Cor.  i.  12 ;  Eph.  ii.  3 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  15 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  12. 

*  [The  foregoing  interpretation  does  not  appear  correct  to  us.  We  prefer  the 
common  one.  We  may  let  nen^dji.  mean  :  "  we  believe"  But  the  psycholog- 
ical matter  adduced  above  aijainst  one's  saying:  "we  believe  that  we  have  a 
good  conscience,"  has,  in  our  opinion,  no  weight.  One  may  so  express  himself 
toward  others,  when  aware  that  among  tliein  tiiere  is  a  current  of  feeling  of 
mistrust  concerning  himself  Such  a  condition  of  things  is  implied  by  the 
language  before  us  (Comp.  Del.  and  on  ver.  22  belowX  We  have,  therefore,  given 
above  the  usual  rendering  of  ver.  18,  and  not  that  which  von  Ilofmann's  com- 
ment calls  for.]  *  Comp.  Philemon  22. 

®  So,  c.  g.,  Bengel.  '  Against  Ebrard  on  ver.  23. 


528  THE  GOD  OF  PEACE.  [xiii.  20,  21. 

well-pleasing  in  Ms  sight;  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  [be] 
the  glory  forever  and  ever,  Amen. 

The  Apostle  here  designates  God  by  a  title  =the  God  of  peace, 
that  is  very  current  with  him/  but  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in 
the  New  Testament.  Its  frequent  use  by  him  makes  it  unlikely 
that  its  occurrrence  here  refers  to  any  discord  among  the  readers, 
either  already  rife  or  threatening.^  It  occurs  in  the  same  sense 
in  which  he  expresses  his  benediction :  "  peace  from  God  the 
Father."  As  in  that  b(mediction  ^  peace  is  the  actual  fact  of  that 
which  makes  men  blessed,  so  the  God  of  peace  is  the  God  who 
displays  his  divinity  in  realizing  this  actual  state  of  things.* 
And  so  also  here,  where  the  God  so  named  has  displayed  Himself 
as  such  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  would  display  Himself 
as  such  in  working  that  which  is  well-pleasing  to  Him  in  the 
readers.  In  the  first  respect  He  is  called :  who  brought  again 
from  the  dead  the  great  shepherd  of  the  sheep  on  account  of  the 
blood  of  the  eternal  covenant.  In  this  the  Apostle  recalls  two 
Old  Testament  passages,  Isa,  Ixiii.  11,  and  Zech.  ix.  11.  The 
former  of  these  passages  relates  to  a  time  when  Jehovah  contends 
with  His  rebellious  people,  in  view  of  which  the  so  different  time 
of  Moses  and  of  his  people  is  remembered,  and  it  is  exclaimed  : 
"Where  is  he  that  brought  them  up  out  of  the  sea  [along]  with 
the  shepherd  of  his  flock."  ^  The  Apostle  borrows  from  this 
description  of  what  Jehovah  did  to  Moses,  the  expression  for 
what  God  did  to  Jesus  in  bringing  Him  up  from  the  world  of 
the  dead.  As  Moses  was  the  shepherd  of  the  Old  Testament 
people  of  God,  so  is  our  Lord  Jesus  the  great  shepherd  of  the 
New  Testament  people  of  God.  Death  dared  not  hold  Him,  but 
must  release  Him  that  He  might  lead  God's  people  into  God's 
rest.  But  by  this  it  is  not  said  that  the  expression  avayayw-jf 
beside  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  comprehends  also  His  exaltation 

» 1  Thess.  V.  23  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  16 ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  11 ;  Eom.  xv.  33,  xvi.  20 ;  Phil, 
iy,  9.  "^  Against  Boehme,  Del.,  Kurtz,  el  al. 

'  Comp.  at  1  Thess.  i.  1.  *  Comp.  at  1  Thess.  v.  23. 

^  "We  omit  the  exposition  by  which  von  Hof.  establishes  this  rendering,  and 
considers  the  substantially  correct  rendering  of  the  LXX.  Our  English  Bible 
gives  us  the  result.  ®  Comp.  Rom.  x.  7. 


Xiii.  20,  21.]  THE  GEEAT  SHEPHERD.  529 

to  heaven.^  Seeing  the  designation  :  "  the  great  shepherd  of  the 
sheep  "  originates  in  the  comparison  of  Jesus  with  Moses,  we  are 
not  to  understand  that  there  is  here  any  allusion  to  the  "  shep- 
herds "  of  the  readers  in  whom  they  slighted  the  over-shepherd.^ 
But  what  is  held  up  to  view  is,  how  much  greater  that  is  which 
they  have  in  Jesus,  than  the  Old  Testament  people  of  God  had 
in  Moses ;  ^  and  how  much  greater  a  thing  God  did  for  Jesus 
that  they  might  have  Him  for  their  Shepherd,  Leader  and  Over- 
seer, than  Jehovah  did  for  Moses, 

The  ^i>  aliiart.  8ux>'^rjxrj<}  atwv{<iu  has  a  similar  purport.     It  is  not 

to  be  connected  with  rdv  p.iyav  or  with  rdv  -otiU'^a  zwv  TzpmSdruJv  row 
liiya'^,*  if  it  is  written  with  allusion  to  Zech.  ix.  11.  This  allusion 
indeed,  is  denied,  or  held  to  be  doubtful.^  Even  the  allusion  to 
Isa.  Ixiii.  11  has  been  denied.^  But  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
precisely  the  thing  that  seems  strange  in  the  present  passage,  is 
found  in  Zech.  ix.  11,  and  only  there;  unless  one  is  content  to 
take  the  construction  of  h  aitmrt  x.  r.  ?..  referred  to  above,  accord- 
ing to  which,  that  which  made,  or  rather  makes  Jesus  the  great 
shepherd  is  blood  of  an  eternal  covenant^  of  God.  For,  in  any 
case  [with  the  construction  supposed],  the  words  in  question  must 
connect  directly  with  rdv  ijlyav,  and  in  the  quality  of  shepherd 
and  overseer  of  the  flock,  as  he  is  here  named,  he  must  be  so  great 
through  the  blood  of  an  eternal  covenant  of  God.  It  would  not 
be  said,  that  on  account  of  His  shedding  his  blood  the  flock  is 
committed  to  Him,  and  He  appointed  its  Shepherd ;  ^  but  His 
oversight  of  the  Church,  because  it  comes  about  by  means  of  such 
blood,  must  therefore  be  so  paramount  and  have  such  value ; 

thus  his  notiiaivetv  rd  itpo^aza  must  be  a  Tzniiiah^iv  h  aliiari.^    Then 

it   is   self-evident  that   passages,  like  Acts  xx.   28,  cannot  be 


^  Against  Bleek,  de  Wette,  Maier,  Kurtz.  *  So  Kurtz. 

^  Comp.  iv.  14;  x.  21. 

*  Against  Boehme,  Ebrard,  Riehm,  p.  GOl,  Liin.,  et.  at. 

^  As,  e.  (J.,  Maier  [Del.]  ®  e.  fj.,  Liin. 

''  von  Ilofmann's  rendering  of  (ha-&7/Kr/^  is :  Gotfofordniing,  agreealile  to  what 
he  endeavors  to  establish  concerning  the  word  at  ix.  15.  We  ignore  it  here 
as  not  affecting  the  substance  of  the  present  discussion. 

^  Against  Del.  'Comp.  Rev.  ii.  17. 

34 


530  JESUS   BROUGHT   FROM   THE   DEAD       [xiii.  20,  21. 

compared ;    and  not  less   so  that  Tzocfiaivsiv  is  not  a  notion  to 

to  which  iv  a't/iart  will  fit. 

Accordingly,  iv  aiimn  X.  T.  X.  belongs  to  the  whole  clause  as  the 
nearer  definition  of  what  God  has  done  to  Jesus.  Some  who  rec- 
ognize this,  suppose  that  comparison  may  be  made  to  passages 
like  ix.  25,  and  obtain  the  sense,  that  God  brought  Jesus  from 
the  world  of  the  dead  in  this  way,  that  He  came  bringing  w  itli 
Him  blood  of  an  eternal  covenant  of  God.^  But  this  explana- 
tion ignores  the  assumed  force  of  h ;  as  one  is  not  to  think  of 
blood  of  an  eternal  covenant  of  God  as  the  means  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  Where,  then,  will  one  find  the  explanation  of 
this  iv,  if  not  in  Zech.  ix.  11,  where  the  translation  reads:  xai 

ffu  iv  aqj-ari   bia'tri'/.-qa    goo    t^ai:i.ffTeika<i   dsff/itowi    sou    ix    Xdxxob    oux 

k'xovTO'i  udwp  ?  Of  course,  the  Apostle's  thought  cannot  refer  to 
such  a  sentence.  But  one  sees  here  again  that  he  is  familiar 
with  the  original  Hebrew  text.  It  is  Jehovah  who,  at  the 
time  when  Zion's  King  rules  from  one  end  of  the  earth 
to  the  other,  has  dobe  also  this  besides  (for  DJ  refers  to  the 
whole  clause),  viz.,  he  has  let  go  out  of  a  pit  of  imprison- 
ment Zion's  captives.  His  children  in  foreign  parts,  out  of  a  pit 
without  water,  i.  c,  of  imprisonment  but  not  of  drowning  and 
destruction ;  He  has  released  them  for  the  sake  of  the  blood  that 
was  once  shed  when  Zion  (or  Israel  as  we  read  Exod.  xxiv.)  was 
restored  to  its  relation  to  Jehovah.  The  ^,  in  ^n'"i|-Dn3  has  the 
force  of:  "  on  account  of,"  "  for  the  sake  of  ;"^  and  so  the  trans- 
lator uses  his  h,  Hebraizing,  as  when  it  is  used  of  the  price  of 
things,^  yet  still  more  like  cases  where  it  expresses  :  with  a  view 
to  what  something  happens.*  And  so  the  Apostle  means  when 
saying  h  aiiian  X.  T.  A.  What  is  said  here  to  have  happened, 
happened  for  the  sake  of  blood,  the  shedding  of  which  served  to 
restore  an  eternal  covenant  of  God,  and  He  who  was  raised  from 
the  dead  by  God  shed  the  blood  for  the  sake  of  which  He  was 
brought  out  of  the  world  of  the  dead,  as  captive  Israel,  in  the 
prophecy,  was  brought  forth  from  the  pit  of  imprisonment. 
But  the  emphasis  is  on  eternal.     If  the  covenant  of  God  that 

^  So  Bleek,  Kurtz.  *  Like  Gen.  xviii.  28. 

3  Winer  Gram.,  p.  365  [390].  *  As,  e.  g..  Matt.  v.  7. 


xiii.  20,  21.]        ox  account  of  the  blood.  531 

this  blood  was  shed  to  restore,  is  eternal,  then  (in  antithesis  to 
]\Ioses,  who  M'as  brought  out  of  the  sea)  He  that  was  brou<j-ht 
from  the  dead  for  the  sake  of  that  same  blood,  remains  the  Shep- 
herd of  God's  flock,  that  He  now  is,  without  ceasing,  as  He 
stands  in  an  unchangeable  life,  having  become  alive  from  the 
dead. 

May  God,  then,  make  them  ready  to  do  His  will — for  of  course 
xazapTiaat  is  not  imperative  middle  aorist — God  wlio  lias  done  as 
expressed,  and  so  has  shown  Himself  as  the  God  of  peace  for- 
ever. ]\Iay  He  also  show  Himself  such  to  the  readers  by  making 
them  finished  in  every  thing  good,  to  do  His  will,  which,  indeed, 
can  only  come  about  by  Himself  working  in  them  that  which  is 
to  Him  well-pleasing. 

It  is  common  to  take  did  Vryo-oD  Xp.  as  belonging  to  noiwv  h  ujuv 
TO  evdpeffTou  hwrrcoy  aorno,  as  if  what  is  further  emphasized  is, 
that  what  God  works  in  us  well-pleasing  to  Himself,  He  works 
through  Jesus  Christ.  But  as  in  the  principal  clause  the  empha- 
sis rests  on  the  avroo  with  which  it  closes,  to  the  effect  that  we 
should  do  the  will  of  Him  who  has  shown  Himself  in  Jesus  as 
the  God  of  peace,  so  also  in  the  added  clause  the  emphasis  will 
rest  on  aomu.  For  it  is  what  is  well-pleasing  to  Himself  that 
He  works  in  us ;  and  thus  the  added  clause  also  concludes  with 
aoToT).  Did  did  Irjff.  Xp.  belong  to  it,  one  would  expect  it  to  stand 
directly  after  Tota^j  h  bpv^.  When  we  take  :  to  whom  [be]  the 
glory  forever  as  referring  to  God,^  it  becomes  quite  impossible 
to  justify  the  position  of  did  Uri<T.  Xp.  as  belonging  to  what  pre- 
cedes, and  separating  the  relative  clause  from  abzw.  It  is,  more- 
over, essentially  the  position  of  these  words,  that  occasions  the 
doxology  to  be  taken  as  ascribed  to  Christ,^  since  otherwise  the 
whole  sentence,  beginning  with  :  "  the  God  of  peace  "  is  so  framed 
as  to  require  us  to  refer  the  doxology  to  God.  And  so  then  : 
by  Jesus  Christ,  put  emphatically  front,  may  belong  to  the  rela- 
tive sentence,^  because  through  Christ  God  is  glorified  in  all  eter- 
nity,^ whether  in  us  what  is  well-pleasing  to  Him  comes  to  pass 

^  So,  e.  g.,  Bengel,  Del. 

*  So,  e.  g.,  Bleek,  Liin.,  Maier,  Kurtz. 

8  Comp.  on  Rom.  xvi.  27.  4  q^^^  q^j   j  ^ 


532  EXHOETATION   IN   FEW  WOEDS.        [xiii.  22,  23. 

or  not.     That  it  does  so  belong,  the  reader  could  observe  if  he 
emphasized  the  two  abroo  as  they  are  to  be  emphasized. 

The  epistle  concludes  with  this  prayer  quite  like  1  Thess.  v. 
23.  It  has  more  and  more  assumed  the  form  of  a  letter.  What 
follows  is  quite  epistolary.  Here  the  Apostle  confers  with  his 
readers  altogether  personally  in  the  first  person  singular. 

Ver.  22.  But  I  exhort  you,  brethren,  bear  with  the  word  of 
exhortation ;  for  I  have  written  in  few  words. 

First  of  all  he  exhorts  them  to  take  in  good  part  his  word  of 
exhortation,  which  in  fact  the  epistle  is,  resulting  continually  in 
exhortation  as  it  does.  For  he  has,  after  all,  expressed  himself 
briefly ;  ^  so  he  adds  with  a  xm  ydp,  where  xai  denotes  that  he 
might  expect  a  ready  hearing  in  accordance  with  the  shortness  of 
his  letter,^  For  he  certainly  does  not  mean  that  they  may  thank 
the  brevity  of  the  letter  for  the  harsher  and  sharper  expressions, 
that  would  have  been  avoided  had  he  written  with  more  thorough 
amplification  and  more  careful  limitation.^  Just  where  he  speaks 
most  sharply,  e.  g.,  v.  12  sqq.,  or  xii.  4  sqq.,  he  has  in  fact  not 
expressed  himself  very  briefly.  But  he  could  say  that  he  has 
expressed  himself  briefly,  not  in  comparison  with  what  he  would 
like  to  have  written  to  them  beside,*  but  in  comparison  with  the 
comprehensiveness  of  his  subject.  It  was  an  object  with  him  to 
bring  the  fullness  of  the  material  he  had  to  deal  with  into  the 
smallest  possible  compass,  so  as  not,  by  a  too  lengthy  letter,  to 
occasion  impatience  and  ill-humor  in  the  readers.  For  the  letter 
was  to  be  read  publicly  and  all  at  once.  He  does  not  call  atten- 
tion to  the  rich  contents,  but  to  how  briefly  he  has  expressed  it. 
Thus  he  holds  a  relation  to  the  readers  as  if  he  felt  the  need  of 
excusing  himself  for  having  written  at  all. 

There  follows  an  item  of  news ;  for  such  is  :  ^ 

Yer.  23.  Know  ye  that  our  brother  Timothy  hath  been  set  at 
liberty. 

Did  this  express :  "  ye  have  heard  and  know  now  ^  that 
Timothy  is  released  from  imprisonment,"  no  object  could  be  per- 

*  Comp.  1  Pet.  V.  12.  *  Against  Maier. 

'  So  Kurtz.  *  So  Del. 

^  Against  Bleek,  de  Wette,  et.  al.        ®  Comp.  Kiihner,  Gramm.,  II.,  p.  118. 


xiii.  24.]  OUR  brother  timothy.  533 

ceived  for  this  remark.^  On  the  contrary,  did  the  readers  know 
that  Timothy  had  been  imprisoned,  the  news  that  he  was  released 
must  first  be  told,  that  the  Apostle  might  announce  that  he  would 
visit  them  accompanied  by  Timothy.  But  the  latter  announce- 
ment is  conditioned  on  Timothy's  joining  him  soon  enough.  It 
has  been  remarked,^  that  d-KoXueiv  may  denote  any  dismissal  where 
one  goes  away  or  where  one  suffers  or  commands  one  to  depart. 
But  what  is  the  use  of  this  remark  ?  So  understood,  the  sentence 
would  express,  that  Timothy  has  already  departed,  to  betake 
himself  somewhere  else  away  from  the  Apostle.  For  without 
nearer  qualification  d-oXsku/iivuv  could  only  be  understood  of  a 
dismissal  that  would  terminate  his  stay  with  the  Apostle.  Instead 
of  that,  we  see  the  Apostle  expecting  Him.  We  must  under- 
stand, then,  that  Timothy  had  been  imprisoned,  and  the  readers 
had  known  it ;  but,  at  least  as  the  Apostle  assumes,  they  had  not 
intelligence  of  his  release.  He  knows  that  the  news  is  particu- 
larly dear  to  them,  and  especially  because  then  they  would  see 
himself  amongst  them.  For  with  him,  not  without  him  as  the 
emphatic  /isra  expresses,  will  the  Apostle  come  to  them.  It  is 
only  a  question,  whether  idv  rd^tov  tpyr^ra^  is  meant  as  a  condition  : 
"  if  he  come  so  soon  ;  "  or,  as  inv  {^drmv  occurs,^  as  denoting  time  : 
"  as  soon  as  he  comes."  *  The  latter  does  not  suit  the  :  "  I  will 
see  you,"*  which  does  not  signify  the  departure,  but  the  arrival. 
Therefore  what  he  says  is,  that  he  will  not  come  to  them  without 
Timothy,  but  makes  this  conditional  on  Timothy's  coming  soon 
enough.  The  comparative  :  rdy.ov  implies  the  possibility  that 
his  arrival  may  be  delayed.  To  this  possibility  is  opposed  the 
other,  that  he  may  come  soon. 

Ver.  24.  Salute  all  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  all 
the  saints.    They  of  Italy  salute  you. 

Judging  by  ver.  17,  the  rulers  are  so  mentioned  expressly,  not 
without  reason.  They  from  Italy  needs  no  other  explanation  than  : 
"  The  brethren  from  Joppa,"  Acts  x.  23.  What  is  called  attrac- 
tion of  prepositions®  occurs  here  as  little  as  at  Phil.  iv.  22.   The 

'  Comp.  Liin.  *  So  also  Del. 

'  e.  g.,  Plato,  Ahih.  I.,  105  A.  *  So  Del. 

6  Comp.  LXX.,  1  Sam.  xx.  28;  Eom.  i.  11.        «Kuhner,  Gram.  IT.,  p.  474. 


534  THEY   FROM   ITALY.  [xiii.  25. 

custom  of  greeting  calls  for  such  an  assumption  in  neither  place/ 
and  we  are  not  to  think  of  a  congregation  of  Italian  Christians.^ 
The  Italian  Christians  are  meant,  and  they  purely/  as  in  Acts 
xvii.  11,  13  :  "those  in  Thessalonica,"  and:  "  those  from  Thes- 
salonica "  are  interchangeable,  without  the  latter  needing  to  be 
explained  by  the  anticipated  representation  of  the  departure  from 
Thessalonica  to  Berea.*  It  is  not  different  from  callino-  the 
Spartans  ol  dizo  iTrdpTT}?  ;  ^  wherefore  one  cannot  make  the  dis- 
tinction that  ol  ^y  TTj  "It alia  are  those  in  Italy,  and  ol  dizo  t^?  /., 
are  natives  of  Italy.®  The  use  of  d-d  is,  rather,  the  same  as  when 
members  of  the  church  are  called  ol  d-u  r?;?  ixxXrjuiU'iJ  It  is  the 
dTTo  denoting :  belonging  to,  and  not :  derivation  from.  If  then  : 
they  of  Italy  are  the  Italians,  or  more  exactly  Italian  Christians,^ 
there  is  no  ground  for  supposing  such  are  meant  as  were  out  of 
Italy,  staying  somewhere  with  the  Apostle.^  It  has  been  objected 
that  the  Apostle  was  not  qualified  to  send  greetings  from  the 
Christians  in  all  Italy .^"^  But  he  was  as  much  so  as  when,  Phil, 
iv.  22,  he  writes  :  "  all  the  saints  salute  you,"  for  which  he  cer- 
tainly had  not  the  permission  of  all  the  saints  in  Rome ;  or  even, 
Rom.  xvi.  16:  "all  the  Churches  of  Christ  salute  you,"  for 
which  he  got  permission  still  less  than  for  that  of  the  Churches 
of  Asia,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19.  In  all  these  places  he  sends  salutations 
without  commission  to  do  so,  in  the  name  of  those  of  whom  he 
knows  that  he  acts  in  their  spirit  when  he  does  it.^^  But  he 
would  not  specially  send  greetings  in  the  name  of  Italian  Chris- 
tians, if  he  were  not  in  Italy.  And  one  may,  perhajjs,  add,  he 
would  send  greeting  from  the  Roman  Church  in  particular  if  he 
were  in  Rome,  and  were  not  on  the  point  of  leaving  the  country 
from  whose  Christians  he  sends  greetings,  [von  Hofmann  infers, 
conjecturally,  that  Paul  was  at  some  point,  say  Brundusium,  await- 
ing an  opportunity  to  voyage  to  the  East,  which  opportunity  he 
must  seize  whether  Timothy  arrived  or  not.] 

» As,  e.  g.,  Thucyd.  7,  70,  5.  ^  As,  e.  g.,  Thucyd.  6,  32,  2. 

»Comp.  Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Del. 

*  Against  de  Wette,  in  loc,  and  Kurtz,  p.  42.  ^  Herod  8,  114. 

«  So  Del.  ^  Acts  xii.  1.  » Comp.  on  Phil.  iv.  23. 

'  Against  Bleek,  I.,  p.  282,  de  Wette,  Liin,,  Kurtz,  p.  42. 

"  So  Kurtz,  p.  41.  "  Comp.  on  1  Cor.  xvi.  19. 


INDEX  OF  TOPICS. 


Aaron,  148. 
Abraham,  212,  229. 
Altar,  the  Christian's,  515-519. 
Anchor  of  tlie  soul,  217. 
Angels  agents  of  revelation,  11. 
Wliat  of,  488,  489. 
compared  with  Christ  as  agents 

of  revelation,  11,  12-29. 
ministers  of  retribution,  26-29, 

32,42. 
not  lords  of  the  world  to  come, 

42. 
Christ  helps  not  them,  72-74. 
Apostasy,  103,  196,  197,  382-387. 
Atonement,  the  extent  of,  51,  56,  72,  73, 
78,  332. 

Baptism,  367,  368,  370,  371. 

Baptisms,  182,  370. 

Believers,  companions  of  Christ,  107. 
enter  God's  rest,  120. 
the  house  of  God,  95-97. 

Betterness  of  the  Cliristian  dispensa- 
tion, 12,  206,  247,  250,  251,  276,  293  sqq., 
333  sqq.,  446,  447. 

Blood  of  Christ,  296,301  sq.,  242  sqq.,  361, 
38.5,  493-495. 

Boldness,  98-143,  361,  396. 

Brethren,  title  of  believers,  82,  373,  509. 

Breviloquence,  5:^,  59,  151,  389,  499,  528. 

Chastisement,  459-466. 
Christ,  names  and  titles  of, 

more  excellent  name,  13. 

only  Son  of  God,  3,  4,  151. 

Apostle,  83. 

Captain,  54. 

Clirist,  293,  3.51,  513. 

First  born,  20. 

God,  23,  24. 

High  Priest,  76-79,83, 140-143, 150- 

163,  218,  260,  293. 
Jesus,  48,  251,  257,  454,  513,  527. 
Lord,  36,  527. 

Melchizedelt,  151,  219  sqq. 
Minister,  210. 

Mediator  of  covenant,  276,  492. 
Priest,  226  sqq.,  253,  365. 
Priest  and  High  Priest  distin- 

guislied,  261. 
Sanctiller,  58. 
Hon,  3,  4,  13,  141,  384. 
Bliepherd,  Great,  527. 
Surety  of  Covenant.  250,  3.51. 
Christ  able  to  succour,  81,  2.53. 

ascension    of,    see    session   In 

heaven, 
owns  believers  as  brethren,  59 

sqq. 
the  cause  of  salvation,  160,  253, 

296,  301,  302,  309,  310,  453. 


Christ,  conscious  of  his  mission,  347, 

455. 
blood  of,  296,  .301  sqq. 
compared  witli  Moses,  84-97. 
compared  with  Abraham,    229- 

2:U. 
compared    with  the  Levitieal 

priests,  231-2-52  sqq. 
his  death  a  .sacrifice,  310, 326, 327, 

349-3.59. 
descended  from  Judah,  241. 
divine  in  glory  and  suijstance, 

8,  23,  24. 
divine  providence  of,  5,  6,  9. 
his  dread  of  death,  1.55. 
his  exaltation.     (See  Humilia- 
tion.) 
our  Example,  4-56. 
his  ExiJiation  of  sins,  9,  51,  77, 

78,  1.50-163,  296,  301,  302,  309,  310, 

.349-a59. 
glory  of,  84-97,  150. 
greater  tlian  the  Law,  246  sqq. 
his  humanity,  48,  49,  65  sqq.,  71, 

75,  142,  150-163. 
his  aim  in  assuming   human 

nature,  49-.52,  6(j-69,  75,  455. 
made  of  God,  86,  88. 
his  "  humiliation  and  exalta- 
tion "  not  represented,  8,  9, 12. 
his  intercession,  254,  29.5. 
his  obedience,  151-159. 
to  be  obeyed,  160. 
ofTering  prayers  and  supplica- 
tions, 152  sqq. 
offeri  ng  sacrifice,  264-266, 272-277, 

29.5-2!tS,  .lOl  S(|(i.,  318  sqq.,  324- 

326,  315,  316,  ;;i!t-;i5l. 
perfected,  5(),  .57,  1.59-16.3. 
pre-existent,  4,  :W,  4.5J. 
reproacli  of,  4;«,  4;«,  .523. 
rcscuci-  ana  Restorer  of  man's 

original  destiny,  48  sqq. 
his  Sacrifice  bettor  tlian  legal 
sacriflces,  33:^,  340  sqq.,  352,  ;iT§. 
a  Saviour  by  suffering  death, 

49,  .58,  SO,  150,  160,  296,  301,  302, 

309,  310. 
his  second  coming,  20,  21,  331, 

:«4,  .375,  .■?76. 
his  Session  in  heaven,  7, 10, 161, 

2(i:!,  269,  .•{.")2-:»l. 
sinless,  142,  152,  26.3. 
tempted,  SO. 
w<'i|iiiii,',  154. 
Chri.stoloiry  of  old  Testament,  19,  63. 
Churdi  or  Kirsl-born,  -189. 
Circumlocution.    (See  Bi'oviloquonce.) 
Coming  to  God,  144,  247,  2rA  sq.,  360,  368, 

369,  479. 
Confession,  our.  8.3,  366,  367,  .372. 
535 


536 


INDEX   OF  TOPICS. 


Contentment,  511. 

Covenant,  The  better,  251,  252,  276. 

The  Blood  of,  384,  528-531. 
Covetousness,  511. 
Criticism,  Higher,  149,  230. 
Curious  Questions,  299  sq.,  315. 

Dead,  Present  state  of  the  perfect,  69, 

70,  156,  157,  4.51,  462. 
Death,  Apprehension  of  a  bondage,  70, 
155,  156. 
suffering  of,  50,  51. 
the  bar  to  man's  original  des- 
tiny, 51. 
The  Devil's  power  of,  67,  68. 
nullified  by  Christ,  67,  68. 
to  SSaiuts   under  the  Old,  and 
under  the  New  Testament,  69- 
71. 
Through  death,  locally,  69. 
Devil,  his  power  of  death,  67-69. 
nullified  by  Christ,  67,  6;8. 
Discrepancies,  Alleged,  264,  28Z-284,  317, 
401,  479-484. 

Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Argument  of.    (See  R6sum(5.) 
Author,  29,  30,  39-41,  185,  247,  248, 

387,  390,  402,  404,  528. 
Dateof writing.  (SeeReadersof) 
Readers  of,  2,  3:^1,  73,  78,  16:i- 

175,  254,  313,  393-395. 
Readers,  their  doctrinal  status 

of,  9,  10,  16,  21. 
Traits  of  Style,  11,  13-15,  59,  67, 
99,  104,  107,  109,  136,  150,  151. 
End,  The,  107,  108,  209,  401. 
Elements  of  the  oracles  of  God,  166,  219, 

281. 
Enlightened,  191. 
Exegesis,  Apostolic  and  Inspired,  255. 

Faith,  181,  403,  406,  407,  408-4.52,  513. 

Righteousness  and  Justification 
by.    (See  Righteousness.) 

saves,  403,  406,  407. 
Foundation,  laying,  179,  180. 
Full  Assurance,  209. 
Full  growth,  172,  174,  175. 

Gethsemane,  1.54. 
God,  The  Father. 

not  so-called  of  the  Son,  10. 
yet  indirectly,  151. 
of  his  people,  54,  64,  6.5,  459^6.3. 
glorifies  the  Son  to  be  High  Priest, 

150  sqq. 
his  manner  to  the  Son  and   to 

angels  contrasted,  11-24. 
his  justice  relied  on,  207. 
The  Judge,  392,  490,  .511. 
The  Living,  .306,  307,  487. 
a  consuming  fire,  508. 
of  peace,  528. 

the  source  of  revelation,  1. 
the  source  of  salvation,  52,  53,  446, 

447. 
the  Grace  of,  52,  143,  470,  471,  506, 

507,  .508,  514. 
oath  of.    (See  Oath.) 
oracles  of.    (See  Oracles.) 
the  will  of,  .398,  399. 
the  word  of,  134-137,  512. 
Gospel,  The  beginning  of,  37,  38,  176. 
The  superiority  of,  40,  41,  42. 

Hades,  69, 156,  450.    (See  under  Death.) 


Heaven,  287  sqq.,  294  sqq.,  296,  321-323, 

361,  417,  418,  422-425. 
High  priest,  79,  83,  140-143,  145. 
Holy  of  Holies,  286  sqq. 
Holy  place,  sanctuary,  271,  286  sqq.,  296, 

322,  361,  519. 
Holy  Spirit,  41,  287,  a57,  a5S,  386,  387. 
Hope,  The,  98,  216,  247,  372. 
House  of  God,  86,  87,  95-97,  366,  366. 

Intercession  of  Christ,  264,  295. 

Jesus.    (See  Christ.) 
Jerusalem,  destruction  of.    (See  Jews.) 
Jerusalem,  The  Heavenly,  .523. 
Jews,  Characteristic  way  of  preaching 
to,  34-37,  313. 

Condemned  by  the  Law,  27-41. 

rejection  and  destruction  of,  401, 
407. 

see  Judgment  a-coming. 
Judgment,  Eternal,  184. 
Judgment  a-coming,  380,  381,  401,  407. 

Kingdom,  that  cannot  be  moved,  500, 
507. 

Law,  The  law  changed,  i.  e.  abrogated, 

246. 
and  Faith,  27,  28,  29,  30,  614,  515, 
the  law  a  shadow,  3  >4  sq. 
does  not  perfect,  333. 

Laying  on  hands,  183. 

Levi,  230. 

Man,  under  condemnation,  27-41,.50  sqq. 

as  originally  destined,  4.5-47. 
Marriage,  .511. 
Mercy,  143. 

Messianic  scripture,  16-19,  46,  61-64. 
Melchizedek,  151,  219  sqq. 
Milk  for  babes,  170. 
Moses,  84-97.    (See  under  Christ.) 

Oath  of  God,  215,  251,  267. 

Oracles  of  God,  166.    (See  Elements.) 

Patience,  210  398. 

Perfected.    (See  also  under  Christ),  56, 

57,  159,  267,  447,  491,  492. 
Perfection,  10,  11,  1.59,  238,  340,  355,  356, 
447-451. 
not  by  law,  3-33. 
not   by    Levitical    priests, 
2;38  sqq. 
People  of  God,  78,  390.    (See  also  House 

of  God.) 
Perseverance  of  believers,  98,  107,  108, 

203,  205,  318,  403,  406. 
Peter,  an  example  of  shrinking  back, 

404. 
Priests  inferior  to  Christ,  249-252,  352 

sqq. 
Priesthood  changed,  240  sqq. 
Promise,  The,  2KV212,  214,  397,  398,  420, 

439,  44.5,  446-4.51,  501. 
Psychology,  13.5. 

Recompense  of  reward,  .397,  434. 
Redemption,  292,  296-298,  309. 
Regeneration  not  represented,  205. 
Refusing  Christ,  495,  496. 
Regenerate,  The  falling  away  of.    (See 

Perseverance.) 
Repentance,  181,  197,  198,  47.5. 
Reproach  of  Christ,  4;B3,  4.34, 
Reprobation.    (See  Perseverance.) 


INDEX   OF  TOPICS. 


537 


Resurrection,  441,  528. 

Rest,  God's  rest,  the  rest,  my  rest,  121 
sqq.,  124  sqq. 

ResumC'  of  the  argument  and  progress 
of  thought  of  the  Epistle,  1-8,  5,  (i,  11, 
13,  14,  2."),  28,  29,  81,  41,  42,  5),  ;>!,  (>j,  71, 
72,  74,  79,  80,  81,  82,  84,  S9,  90,  lU.'!,  10.>-l(r7, 
109-113,  110,  120,  132,  l;i4,  139, 140,  142, 144, 
145,  149,  iry2,  1*?,  101-103,  10.i,  174,  175, 
187-190,  218,  219, 227,  237,  2M,  242,  215,  246, 
249,  2;52,  2(i0,  207,  2(i8,  272, 273, 270,  280,307, 
308,  311,  327-^^29,  333,  373,  377,  378,  405, 477, 
478,  501,  506,  525. 

Revelation,  Tlie  period  of,  1-3. 
Agents  of,  1-3. 
by  the  Son,  final,  3,  326. 

Righteous  by  faith,  402-108,  414,  416. 


Sabbath  day,  129  sqq.,  132. 
Sacrifices  abrogated,  345,  346-359,  379. 
Sacrifice,  Christian,  524. 
Salvation,  33-3.5,  54,  206,  253  sq. 

by  sanctiflcation,  58. 
Saved,  Those  that  are  saved  of  the  same 

parent,  as  also  Christ,  58. 
Sanctify,  58,  349-356,  368,  369,  384-386,  520, 

521. 
Sanctiflcation,  The,  470. 
Scripture,  Infallible,  255  sq. 


Scripture  Quotations,  Formulas  of,  44, 
99. 
not  dependent  on  LXX.,  62, 

99-101,  401,  402,  4;58,  4.59,  530. 
to      clothe      the     Author's 
thoughts,    14,    1,5-19,    60-<i.5, 
151.  34l-;{44,  388,  :«9,  400,  402. 
Quotation  for  authority,  44. 
Sin,  6,  32.  78,  308,  309,  377,  4.5;^. 
Spirits,  Perfected,  491,  492. 
Strangers  and  Sojourners,  420,  421. 
love  to,  509. 

Tabernacle,  its  furniture  and  use,  282- 

286. 
Tempted,  442-444. 
Time,  For  the,  167-169. 
Typology,  63,  91-93,  27.5.  286-297,  333-337. 
To-day,  104,  123,  167, 168. 

Vail,  The,  217,  218,  362-364. 

Way,  New  and  living,  362-364. 
WillofGod,  398,  399. 
Word  of  God,  134-137. 
A,  194. 
Works,  Dead,  181,  304-306. 
World  to  come,  43,  196. 

Zion,  484,  486. 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURAL  REFERENCES. 


Num.  XX.  1-13,  p.  100. 

Num.  XXV.  1-18,  p.  473. 

Num.  XII.  7,  p.  84,  86. 

Deut.  IX.  19,  p.  483. 

Deut.  XXIX.  18,  p.  472. 

Deut.  XXXII.  43. 

Deut.  XXXII.  p.  381,  382,  388,  389,  391-393. 

Josh.  I.  5,  p.  511. 

2  Sam.  VI.  14,  p.  16,  20. 

1  Chr.  XVII.  13,  p.  16,  20. 

Ps.  II.  7,  p.  16,  20, 151. 

Ps.  VII.  4-6,  p.  44r48. 

Ps.  XXII.  22,  p.  62. 

Ps.  XXXVI.  ],p.  71. 

Ps.  XL.  6-8,  p.  342,  sqq. 

Ps.  XLV.  67,  p.  17-22. 

Ps.  LXXIII.  4,  p.  71. 

Ps.  XCV.  7-11,  p.  99-102. 

Ps.  XCVII.  7. 

Ps.  CII.  25-27,  p.  18,  22. 

Ps.  CIV.  4,  p.  22. 

Ps.  ex.  p.  25. 

Ps.  ex.  4,  p.  151,  222,  sqq.,  244,  sqq. 

Ps.  CXXXV.  14,  p.  388,  389. 

Prov.  III.  2,  p.  458,  459. 

Isa.  VIII.  17,  18,  p.  62,  63. 

Isa.  XXVI.  20,  p  399. 

Isa.  XLl.  9,  p.  73. 

Isa.  LXIII.  2,  p.  528. 

Jer.  XXXI.  31-34,  p.  278,  sqq. 

Jer.  XXXI.  32,  p.  73,  357,  sqq. 

Ezek.  XIV.  13,  p.  197. 

Ezek.  XVIII.,  24,  p.  196. 


Hab.  II.  3,  4,  p.  400,  402. 

Hag.  II.  6,  p.  502-506. 

Zech.  IX.  11,  p.  530. 

Matt.  VI.  13,  p.  22. 

Matt.  XXVI.  45,  p.  154. 

Matt.  XXVII.  51,  p.  362,  sq. 

Mark  XIV.  41,  p.  154. 

Luke  VIL  8,  sqq.;    XVIL  7-9;    XV.,  17; 

XV.  17,  sqq.,  p.  18, 19. 
Luke  XXII.  46,  p.  154. 
Jno.  V.  45,  p.  73. 
Jno.  XVIL  25,  26,  p.  63. 
Rom.  I.-IX.  p.  179. 
Rom.  1. 17,  p.  402. 
Rom.  III.  25,  p.  27. 
Rom.  V.  12, 14,  p.  67. 
Rom.  VI.  1-14,  p.  183, 184. 
Rom.  XII.  19,  p.  388,  390. 
1  eor.  X.  1-14,  p.  473. 

1  eor.  XV.  p.  179. 
Gal.  III.  1-5,  p.  184. 
Gal.  III.  2,  5,  p.  73. 
Gal.  III.-V.  12,  p.  179, 
Gal.  III.  10,  sqq.,  p.  33. 
Gal.  III.  11,  p.  402. 
Gal.  III.  19-24,  p.  28. 
Ephes.  1. 10,  sq.,  p.  4. 
Phil.  IIL  3-11,  p.  184. 
eol.  IL20;  III.,  1,  p.  184. 

2  Thess.  I.  7,  p.  21. 

2  Thess.  II.  10,  p.  103, 105. 
1  Peter  III.  22,  p.  21. 


538 


INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS. 


ayta,  271,  286,  sqq.,  296,  322,  361,  519. 

ayia  dyiuv,  286  sqq. 

dyidCo),  355,  356. 

dyvoelv,  147. 

aluv,  5,  326,  411. 

OIKO^,  117. 

ciKovu,  118,  119. 

dfiaprdvu,  378. 

dvaKaivi(eiv,  dvoKacvovv,  197. 

dva({,epeiv,  266,  273,  330,  331,  332. 

aTTiaTta,  102,  112. 

diroXeiTreTat,  122,  130, 132. 

diToXvTpuaiQ^  309,  see  Mrpuacg. 

apa,  129. 

dpxvydv,  54,  453. 

(idTTTiana^  (iaTTTiajudc,  182. 

Sia^r/K?/,  312. 

Siacpepurepog,  13. 

60KEO),  115. 

<5dfa,  150 ;  see  r<//^. 

(Jwpa  re  /cat  T^vaiag,  146,  291. 

«(Torfoi',  361. 

£/crfo;f^,  380, 

EKElvog,  133. 

£/l7r/f,  98. 

£7ra}yella,  397,  398. 

kneipaa^Tjaav,  442-444. 

e7ri?M/Lii3dveTai,  -/3dvEGi^ai,  71,  73; 

kniawayuyTj^  374. 

iTTpEKEv,  262  ;  see  ttpettov. 

^(T^Ev  EvayjEXia/iEvoi,  116. 

EvMjSEia,  157. 

t^e/odTTwv,  92. 


iXdoKEd^aij  77. 
Kaltu,  Kl^aiq^  83. 
Kavxf?/ua,  98. 
KE(j)dlaiov  6e,  268,  269. 
Kh/povoftElv,  210,  211. 
Koivuvio),  65,  66. 
KOfill^Ea^at,  211. 

KpElTTCJVj   12,  13. 

Tmtpevelv^  275. 

Adyof  6iKacoGvvT/g^  171. 

Avrpuaig,  296,  sq.  309  ;  see  dnoTivrp. 

/laprvpElv,  357. 

/mprvpEla^ai,  409,  445. 

fiETExc-i,  65,  66 ;  see  koivuveu. 

fiEToxog,  106,  193. 

/liad-a-rrodoaia,  397,  434. 

oIkov/iev?/,  20. 

napaTTiTTTEiv^  196. 

napo^vajudg,  374. 

7r/lavd(Ti?a<,  147. 

npETTov,  52,  53 ;  see  InpEnEv. 

■!TpocEpxEC-&aL^  144. 

■n-poG(j>EpEiv,  146-153,  266,    273,  330; 

see  dva(pEpEiv. 
TrpurdroKogj  20. 
cajijiaTiafidq^  131. 
cwSeSeiievol^  510. 
awKEKapidfiEvovg,  117. 
TeAe^dw,  355,  356. 

TE?iElO)V,  172. 

r</z^,  150  ;  see  rfdfa. 
Tpaxn^i^eiv,  138. 
vaTEpTjKtvai,  114. 

539 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01231    5588 


